Works Salvation is False

[fhansen]

However, the history, which to you is authoritative, of the last 500 years shows otherwise.

How so? If anything, the history of the last 500 years authoritatively demonstrates that error can enter even after 1500 years of solid teachings. That's the human way.

 

[Clare73]

How so? If anything, the history of the last 500 years authoritatively demonstrates that error can enter even after 1500 years

You fail to realize that the church is the "body of Christ", it is not the "Catholic magisterium."

of solid teachings.

Some of it not so solid, in that it contradicts NT apostolic teaching.

That's the human way.

Contradiction of NT apostolic teaching is indeed the human way.

 

[Michie]

Amazing Grace – How Catholics are Saved – Catholic Stand

catholicstand.com

 

[fhansen]

You fail to realize that the church is the "body of Christ", it is not the "Catholic magisterium."

You fail to understand the importance of the fact the God created one church, that cannot be divided in truth, but that necessarily possesses a unifed body of beliefs. And a church that has fought to maintain that body of beliefs correctly since the beginning. We received the canon of the New Testament through the church, as well as the doctrine of the Trinity and the creed that came from that same council to name a couple that most Christians agree on. And that's the point. There's also much division now in Christianity resulting from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. We both "dialogue" with other believers on these very forums over significant differences of opinion based on differing biblcal interpretations, generally quite sincerely held with arguments that can be equally plausible and persuasive.

While 500 years ago everyone isolated from each other over differences, today some have made efforts at mending our divisions involving looking at where we have agreements, and where we don't. The Catholic church, for its part, holds that its positions are true based not only on Scripture but, yes, its lived history, and that most of Protestantism is part of that "one catholic church" even if imperfectly united to it, lacking "the fullness of truth" as it's sometimes called. Some Protestants still believe the RCC is the wh*** of Babylon. Anyway, as well as an invisible, spiritual body, God's church must also be visible and locatable and historically, directly connected to the beginning, and I'll submit that such can be found in both the EO and RCC, again, with warts and all.

Some of it not so solid, in that it contradicts NT apostolic teaching.

Sure, according to you anyway. I'd suggest that even a fairly serious dip into early church history would result in a different opinion on that.

Contradiction of NT apostolic teaching is indeed the human way.

My point exactly.

 

[Clare73]

You fail to understand the importance of the fact the God created one church, that cannot be divided in truth, but that necessarily possesses a unifed body of beliefs. And a church that has fought to maintain that body of beliefs correctly since the beginning.

Please don't make me list the errors causing the Reformation, which Reformation did maintain belief according to apostolic teaching of the NT on salvation, justification and sanctification.

We received the canon of the New Testament through the church, as well as the doctrine of the Trinity and the creed that came from that same council to name a couple that most Christians agree on. And that's the point. There's also much division now in Christianity resulting from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I'll never get used to that upside down reasoning. . .

The problem is the authority of Scripture over the authority of man.
The solution is the authority of man over the authority of Scripture.

The problem is the Reformation, that recovery of the faith that was once-for-all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), "the fullness of the truth."
The solution is to reject the Reformation and maintain the departure from the faith that was once-for-all delivered to the saints, "the fullness of the truth ."

We both "dialogue" with other believers on these very forums over significant differences of opinion based on differing biblcal interpretations, generally quite sincerely held with arguments that can be equally plausible ans persuasive.

Any argument that sets Scripture against Scripture should not be persuasive to anyone, as in
1 Pe 3:21 (baptism saves) against Eph 2:8-9 (salvation is not by works, including the rite of baptism).

While 500 years ago everyone isolated from each other over differences, today some have made efforts at mending our divisions involving looking at where we have agreements, and where we don't. The Catholic church, for its part, holds that its positions are true based on not only Scripture but, yes, its lived history,

Divine truth is by revelation, not by the lived history of flawed humans.

and that most of Protestantism is part of that "one catholic church" even if imperfectly united to it, lacking "the fullness of truth" as it's sometimes called.

All the born again are the church, the body of Christ, all possessing the same "fullness of truth" in the word of God written.

Some Protestants still believe the RCC is the wh*** of Babylon. Anyway, as well as an invisible, spiritual body, God's church must also be visible and locatable and historically connected to the beginning, and I'll submit that such can be found in both the EO and RCC, again, with warts and all.

Who made that rule?

Nevertheless, the born again across the world are visible in their assemblies, locatable, and are necessarily connected to the beginning, Jesus Christ, through their rebirth by the Holy Spirit.

Sure, according to you anyway. I'd suggest that even a fairly serious dip into early church history would result in a different opinion on that.

It's that fairly deep dip that is the problem. . .doctrine contrary to Eph 2:8-9, misunderstanding of justification (imputed righteousness, Ro 4:3), indulgences, purgatory, etc.

My point exactly.

And yet, there it is, listed right above.

 

[fhansen]

Such as sanctification leads to justification, fallen man is able to not sin

Well, this shows that you're ignorant of RCC teachings already. Justificatiion comes first, sanctifcation is a continuation of being made just as growth in holiness is a never-ending process. The early church always believed this. In fact, the early church taught that if a believer returned to grave sin after conversion that there was no repentance possible, a very biblical concept. It took the efforts of an early Bishop of Rome to turn that ship around, and give more balance to the church at large in understanding God's capacity for forgivness and desire for none to perish. Meanwhile his detractors, going by Scripture, retorted, "But what about Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-29, 1 John 5:16, or the blasphemy of the HS?"

And the church teaches that while not everything that fallen man does is evil (we'd have to be quite naive or purposefully blind to think so), only the justifed man is able to refrain from sin to a degree that satisfies God.

I'll never get used to that upside down reasoning. . .

The problem is the authority of Scripture over the authority of man.
The solution is the authority of man over the authority of Scripture.

You should get used to it. The fallacy of Sola Scriptura inevitably becomes obvious to anyone who's willing to open ther eyes to the truth. The problem is the authority of man over Scripture: that's Sola Scriptura.

Any argument that sets Scripture against Scripture should not be persuasive to anyone, as in

Yes, and of course you uniquely have the answer when Scripture may appear to be at odds with itself. Maybe you could take a look at what the church unanimously taught when this happens, instead of relying on a man's private interpretation? Probably not.

Divine truth is by revelation, not by the lived history of flawed humans.

It helps a bunch when flawed humans actually understand that revelation. The early church had the benefit of both the written and unwritten revelation/Word of God, that also being a biblical concept. And it simply continued in that same vein, carrying the same practices and beliefs forward, the Holy Spirit continuing to guide His flawed humans on these matters.

The born again across the world are visible in their assemblies, locatable, and are necessarily connected to the beginning, Jesus Christ, through their rebirth by the Holy Spirit.

Right. Sure. As if such a divided visible church conglomeration would've been able to produce the canon of the new testament or decide on the issue of Arianism, coming up with a creed and a canon that most all happen to agree on today. Without that singlular church that bound believers together back at that time, Christianity would be hardly recognizable today. God established and used that church-and the Reformation will not prevail against it.

It's that fairly deep dip that is the problem. . .doctrine contrary to Eph 2:8-9, misunderstanding of justification (imputed righteousness, Ro 4:3), indulgences, purgatory, etc.

The misunderstanding is yours, issuing from the novel doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Reformed doctrine of Sola Fide, a doctrine the outworkings of which even Protestants disagree on anyway, is...just...plain...wrong. The Apostles wouldn't have recognized it.

And yet, there it is, listed right above.

Answer: stop relying on man.

 

[Clare73]

Well, this shows that your ignorant of RCC teachings already. Justificatiion comes first, sanctifcation is a continuation of being made just as grwoth in holiness is a never-ending process. The early church alwasy believed this.

It seems you should take a dip into church history.

Maybe you could take a look at what the church unanimously taught when this happens, instead of relying on a man's private interpretation?

The Catholic church's interpretation is not that of men?

Hmmm. . .

 

[fhansen]

It seems you should take a dip into church history.

I have more tha just a dip. But keep away from that stuff if you prefer; truth has a way of muddying the waters for some.

The Catholic church's interpretation is not that of men?

God established a church, consisting of weak vessels: men, who sometimes manifest their weaknesses in all-too-obvious manner. But it's by no means beneath His abilities to nonetheless preserve His truths intact in such a church, at His discretion and according to His perfect wisdom and will. Does He desire the product of men going by Scripture alone: the disunity of beliefs so evident in the many churches or denominations that have resulted? There's a reason why the eastern and western churches, after centuires of isolation from each other, happen to have the same basic "take" on justification, as one example out of many including the reverence for the Eucharist, the real presence, baptismal regeneration, the liturgies, to name a few others.

 

[Clare73]

I have more tha just a dip. But keep away from that stuff if you prefer; truth has a way of muddying the waters for some.

Contraire. . .truth never muddies anything.** You're confusing blindness in the subject with muddying of the object.

Imprecise distinctions make for incorrect doctrine; e.g., regeneration by works (baptism) in contradiction of regeneration by faith, not by works (Eph 2:8-9).**

God established a church, consisting of weak vessels: men, who sometimes manifest their weaknesses in all-too-obvious manner. But it's by no means beneath His abilities to nonetheless preserve His truths intact in such a church, at His discretion and according to His perfect wisdom and will.

Which is precisely what his work of reformation is.

Does He desire the product of men going by Scripture alone: the disunity of beliefs so evident in the many churches or denominations that have resulted? There's a reason why the eastern and western churches, after centuires of isolation from each other, happen to have the same basic "take" on justification,

Which with the changes in understanding of justification seen in this history--from justification being God's over-all purpose, to salvation being God's over-all purpose--does not mean they have yet arrived at a completely Biblical understanding of justification, and which was the cause of the Reformation by a Catholic monk.

as one example out of many including the reverence for the Eucharist, the real presence, baptismal regeneration, the liturgies, to name a few others.

There is no lack of reverence for the Lord's Supper in Christianity,
nor is there "presence" in a dead sacrifice, anymore than there was "presence" in the OT meal on the dead sacrifice,
no regeneration by rites, in contradiction of Jn 3:3-8 (sovereign regeneration), Eph 2:8-9 (no works, rites in salvation),
nor lack of respect for church order in the Lord's Supper and baptism.
_______________________

**You set Peter against Paul, who teaches that salvation is through faith, not by works (Eph 2:8-9), such as the rite of baptism.

The text of 1 Pe 3:20-21 reads: ". . .the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, an ark being prepared in which a few, this is eight souls, were quite saved through water. Which figure also now saves us, that is baptism (what baptism figures/symbolizes; i.e., death, is what saves us) not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but an answer of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

When you consider the grammatical construction of Peter's context above in Noah and the ark,
baptism is a figure/symbol of the water which saved eight people in the ark, where the
flood is a figure of baptism, in that in both instances, the water that spoke of judgment
(in the flood, the death of the wicked; in baptism, the death of Christ and the believer, Ro 6:2-4) is the water that saves; and
baptism is a figure of salvation, in that it depicts Christ's death, burial and resurrection and our identification with his death therein (Ro 6:2-4).

"Also now saves us," in the context of the rest of the NT, means saved by what baptism symbolizes--Christ's death and resurrection (Ro 6:2-4).
This using of the symbol to refer to the reality is, as I understand it, what the Catholic church calls "sacramental union."

"answer of a good conscience toward God" is a commitment on the part of the believer in all good conscience to make sure that what baptism symbolizes in Ro 6:2-4 will become a reality in his life.

And now we have Peter and Paul in agreement in the truth of the matter, and not set against each other in untruth.

Truth clarifies, it does not muddy.

 

[fhansen]

Which with the changes in understanding of justification seen in this history--from justification being God's over-all purpose, to salvation being God's over-all purpose--does not mean they have yet arrived at a completely Biblical understanding of justification, and which was the cause of the Reformation by a Catholic monk.

Since we've both nearly converted each other , and since I've grown a bit weary of the same ole back and forth, I was going to suggest a truce. But as you've now introduced a whole new level of ignorance of the gospel I feel compelled to continue now anyway.

If salvation without justification first was God’s plan then He never would’ve given Adam a command to fulfill to begin with, or given more law to man later to show what a justified man “looks like”, or patiently worked with man down through the centuries in general in order to ultimately bring Him to justification, and therefore salvation. He would’ve just saved man, from the beginning. putting whomever He wanted into heaven. Instead He expects something from man, a right and just life that prevents him from the condemation to death that sin would otherwise earn him. This directive did not change one bit with the new covenant:
“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

But God knows what man needs to learn, that the first right and just step is for man to be in a state of humble subjugation to Him, something Adam refused to do. And this is why God is so pleased with faith, because faith is the realization of that very thing, the recognition and acceptance of God as our God, before attempting to fulfull any laws, or to "look right" from the outside IOW, on our own as if we possesed any righteousness apart from Him. Faith is the basis of being right, on the inside, it places us is a just state of being now rather that an unjust, disordered, fallen state. So God's whole purpose had been to get man back to that essential place first of all, of believing, in Him, no longer alienated from Him. And Jesus gives us the whole full-true revelation of who that God is, so we might finally get off of ourselves and turn to the real goodness, to the God truly worthy of that title. That makes us His people, and from there He does what man plus the law cannot do on his own: make us just.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people." Jer 31:33

We just need to remain in Him, to remain His people, in order to continue in that justice/righteousness, in that gift, in that grace.
"When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:21-22

Salvation cannot be separated from justification; they're intrinsically bound together in God's plan. One without the other makes no sense; He wants both for us. The Catholic monk was what we call...just plain wrong. He was right about two things: 1) that the church needed reform, but in its practice, not in its doctrine as Luther would later maintain, and 2) that justification was the crux of the Reformation; there was no need for division (or apostasy?) unless the new concept of justification was correct. Now, if one cares to study the original, and truly correct concept of justification and where and how it became even further clarified I can help there.

Truth clarifies, it does not muddy.

You've really proven the opposite for yourself here. So much for what man and the bible alone can produce: a rather sad state of affairs. Since justification cannot be separated from salvation, then one must walk justly in order to be saved. Paul knew this and this is apparent all through Romans alone:
"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. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

Jesus, John, Peter, James, Paul, et al all understood this; they were never in any kind of disagreement to begin with. The real difference between the old and new Covenants isn't that man no longer needs to abide by the law, but that only God could ever fulfill His law in us, as we become His people. So, once man is justified, given the "gift of righteousness" as the bible puts it, he may now do the works, of grace, under grace, by the Spirit, that truly means obedience of God's will- and not works of the law while under the law, that mean nothing, that are to be counted as garbage as Paul tells us in Phil 3. The following passages can only be referring to works of grace:
"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, He will give eternal life." Rom 2:7
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom 2:13
"And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up." Gal 6:9
“For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 5:20
"If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt 19:17
“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.1 John 3:4-8

And as I've stated many times, many things in the bible can be argued quite plausibly from opposing positions. Baptismal regeneration is one of those matters which is why Sola Scriptura adherents argue among themselves over this matter. But in the early church there was never even controversy over this. Jesus said to do it, that we must be born of water and Spirit, and so we do it, doing as He commands out of love for Him (John 14:15). That's simply the belief and practice the church received from the beginning, before the new testament was written and then confirmed by the new testament as well. So, again, you're at odds with Scripture and with history, with the lived experience of the church in both the east and west as well as the testimony of the ECFs.

Your gospel is just too...shallow, to be honest. Just a few erroneous intellectual concepts woodenly gleaned from isolated Scriptural verses, thrown together and presented as Biblical fact. Your faith is good; it just needs to be better informed.

 

[Light of the East]

Coming in late to the party, would someone like to define what their understanding is of "works salvation?" Just so I can be sure I am understanding correctly what is being protested here.

 

[Michie]

Coming in late to the party, would someone like to define what their understanding is of "works salvation?" Just so I can be sure I am understanding correctly what is being protested here.

You Will Know Them by Their Fruits

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Read full chapter

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 7 - New King James Version

Do Not Judge - “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to...

www.biblegateway.com

In context.

 

[Clare73]

Coming in late to the party, would someone like to define what their understanding is of "works salvation?" Just so I can be sure I am understanding correctly what is being protested here.

Any physical performance (e.g., Mosaic law) required for salvation.

 

[Clare73]

Since we've both nearly converted each other ,

Love it!
We'll be in glory together. . .and can ruminate over our debates instead of watching football.

and since I've grown a bit weary of the same ole back and forth, I was going to suggest a truce. But as you've now introduced a whole new level of ignorance of the gospel I feel compelled to continue now anyway.

If salvation without justification first was God’s plan
then He never would’ve given Adam a command to fulfill to begin with,

< sigh >

Salvation is a remedy for failure. . .not the result of success (which remedy is ever more glorious than the success which was forfeited).

or given more law to man later to show what a justified man “looks like”,

The law is not about "showing what a justified man looks like," it's about revealing sin (Ro 3:20), showing what sin looks like.
The law was not given to make righteous, for righteousness has always been by faith, never by law keeping (Gal 3:11-12, Ro 4:3).

or patiently worked with man down through the centuries in general in order to ultimately bring Him to justification, and therefore salvation.

You are conflating the NT presentation of:

A. the two kinds of righteousness in NT apostolic teaching:
1) imputed righteousness of justification (dikaiosis) -- by faith only (Ro 3:28), as in the case of Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3) and in
the born again (Ro 4:1-11), where
justification is a sentence of acquittal of guilt, a declaration of right standing with God's Court, a forensic righteousness; while
2) imparted righteousness of sanctification (dikaiosune) -- is by obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19);

B. the relationship of justification to salvation in NT apostolic teaching where:
1) salvation is removal of the wrath of God (Ro 5:9, Jn 3:36)) and condemnation (Ro 5:18) on one's sin, by faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ (Ro 3:25), which sacrifice paid our debt for sin (cf Mt 18:30); while
2) justification is acquittal of guilt by faith, as the result of salvation (removal of sin), not as the cause of salvation.

So. . .
1) faith in Jesus and his work on the cross remits sin debt by its payment on the cross, resulting in
2) salvation from (removal of) guilt and consequences of sin (condemnation), which then results in
3) justification (declaration of acquittal of guilt, in right standing with God's Court; i.e.. forensically righteous, not sanctified righteous, which is the result of obedience in the Holy Spirit of the Christian life).

He would’ve just saved man, from the beginning. putting whomever He wanted into heaven. Instead He expects something from man, a right and just life that prevents him from the condemation to death that sin would otherwise earn him. This directive did not change one bit with the new covenant:
“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

But God knows what man needs to learn, that the first right and just step is for man to be in a state of humble subjugation to Him, something Adam refused to do. And this is why God is so pleased with faith, because faith is the realization of that very thing, the recognition and acceptance of God as our God, before attempting to fulfull any laws, or to "look right" from the outside IOW, on our own as if we possesed any righteousness apart from Him. Faith is the basis of being right, on the inside, it places us is a just state of being now rather that an unjust, disordered, fallen state.

As long as this notion; i.e., "God knows what man needs to learn"--so suitable to man's fancy--is your understanding of saving faith, you will never understand NT faith.

So God's whole purpose had been to get man back to that essential place first of all, of believing, in Him, no longer alienated from Him. And Jesus gives us the whole full-true revelation of who that God is, so we might finally get off of ourselves and turn to the real goodness, to the God truly worthy of that title. That makes us His people, and from there He does what man plus the law cannot do on his own: make us just.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people." Jer 31:33

We just need to remain in Him, to remain His people, in order to continue in that justice/righteousness, in that gift, in that grace.
"When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:21-22

Salvation cannot be separated from justification; they're intrinsically bound together in God's plan. One without the other makes no sense; He wants both for us. The Catholic monk was what we call...just plain wrong. He was right about two things: 1) that the church needed reform, but in its practice, not in its doctrine as Luther would later maintain, and 2) that justification was the crux of the Reformation; there was no need for division (or apostasy?) unless the new concept of justification was correct. Now, if one cares to study the original, and truly correct concept of justification and where and how it became even further clarified I can help there.

You've really proven the opposite for yourself here. So much for what man and the bible alone can produce: a rather sad state of affairs. Since justification cannot be separated from salvation, then one must walk justly in order to be saved. Paul knew this and this is apparent all through Romans alone:
"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. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

Jesus, John, Peter, James, Paul, et al all understood this; they were never in any kind of disagreement to begin with. The real difference between the old and new Covenants isn't that man no longer needs to abide by the law, but that only God could ever fulfill His law in us, as we become His people. So, once man is justified, given the "gift of righteousness" as the bible puts it, he may now do the works, of grace, under grace, by the Spirit, that truly means obedience of God's will- and not works of the law while under the law, that mean nothing, that are to be counted as garbage as Paul tells us in Phil 3. The following passages can only be referring to works of grace:
"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, He will give eternal life." Rom 2:7
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom 2:13
"And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up." Gal 6:9
“For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 5:20
"If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt 19:17
“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.1 John 3:4-8

And as I've stated many times, many things in the bible can be argued quite plausibly from opposing positions. Baptismal regeneration is one of those matters which is why Sola Scriptura adherents argue among themselves over this matter. But in the early church there was never even controversy over this. Jesus said to do it, that we must be born of water and Spirit, and so we do it, doing as He commands out of love for Him (John 14:15). That's simply the belief and practice the church received from the beginning, before the new testament was written and then confirmed by the new testament as well. So, again, you're at odds with Scripture and with history, with the lived experience of the church in both the east and west as well as the testimony of the ECFs.

Your gospel is just too...shallow, to be honest. Just a few erroneous intellectual concepts woodenly gleaned from isolated Scriptural verses, thrown together and presented as Biblical fact. Your faith is good; it just needs to be better informed.

In comparison to the airy fanciful notions of man, I'm not surprised you experience the exoteric Scriptures as "wooden."

Nor is it about shallow or deep, it's about God's revelation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If salvation without justification first was God’s plan then He never would’ve given Adam a command to fulfill to begin with,

How can you possibly know such a thing?

He would’ve just saved man, from the beginning. putting whomever He wanted into heaven. Instead He expects something from man, a right and just life that prevents him from the condemation to death that sin would otherwise earn him.

So, you are saying that man EARNS his salvation now? Certainly sounds that way!

Nevertheless, both your statements there are bogus, man-made. You don't know what God would have done. But you keep insisting on self-determination by the creature.

 

[fhansen]

We'll be in glory together. . .and can ruminate over our debates instead of watching football.

I'll go for that. I wouldn't have even known who won the the Super Bowl (let alone who was playing) if our neighbors had'nt enticed us over for homemade pizza! (Be forewarned tho, God is Catholic)

Salvation is a remedy for failure. . .not the result of success (which remedy is ever more glorious than the success which was forfeited).

No, success, now partnered with our Lord, is how He saves us. There's absolutely no glory in suddenly changing His mind and saving a portion of His creation without regard to their success in becoming righteous/overcoming sin. There's no comdemnation in Chrsit because, with and in Him, and remaining in Him, we are now slaves to righteousness rather than to sin.

The law is not about "showing what a justified man looks like," it's about revealing sin (Ro 3:20

, again.

That's the point, dear. By showing what sin looks like...it's disclosed-so that we become convicted of the sin that we cannot overcome even though God created no one to sin. So, why, then do people sin? Because they born alienated from, no longer in fellowship with, God. Faith opens the door to righteousness for man as it opens the door back to Him, the very source of our righteousness. You see,
"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom 3:20-21

The law was not given to make righteous, for righteousness has always been by faith, never by law keeping (Gal 3:11-12, Ro 4:3).

Exacrtly, if one even understands what that means, as explained above. Faith is the means to true, authentic righteousness for man, not a reprieve from the obligation to be righteous.

As long as this notion; i.e., "God knows what man needs to learn"--so suitable to man's fancy--is your understanding of saving faith, you will never understand NT faith.

Faith is the same is both the OT and NT. It's to rejoin God in the fellowship man was created for. Again, faith is the basis, for justice or righteousness for man. To know Jesus is to know God, to believe in Jesus is to believe in God, to hope in Jesus is to hope in God, and, most importantly, to love Jesus is to love God.
"Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God." 1 Pet 1:21
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

And, again,
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord." Jer 31:33-34

As a person comes to know the true God, they begin to believe, first of all. That's why Jesus came. Then He does what only He can do: He justifies us, putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts.

You are conflating the NT presentation of:

A. the two kinds of righteousness in NT apostolic teaching:
1) imputed righteousness of justification (dikaiosis) -- by faith only (Ro 3:28), as in the case of Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3) and in
the born again (Ro 4:1-11), where
justification is a sentence of acquittal of guilt, a declaration of right standing with God's Court, a forensic righteousness; while
2) imparted righteousness of sanctification (dikaiosune) -- is by obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19);

B. the relationship of justification to salvation in NT apostolic teaching where:
1) salvation is removal of the wrath of God (Ro 5:9, Jn 3:36)) and condemnation (Ro 5:18) on one's sin, by faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ (Ro 3:25), which sacrifice paid our debt for sin (cf Mt 18:30); while
2) justification is acquittal of guilt by faith, as the result of salvation (removal of sin), not as the cause of salvation.

So. . .
1) faith in Jesus and his work on the cross remits sin debt by its payment on the cross, resulting in
2) salvation from (removal of) guilt and consequences of sin (condemnation), which then results in
3) justification (declaration of acquittal of guilt, in right standing with God's Court; i.e.. forensically righteous, not sanctified righteous, which is the result of obedience in the Holy Spirit of the Christian life).

No, you're separating what was never meant to be separated. That's the error of Sola Fide, where the obligation to be righteous is no longer cosidered to be fulfilled by grace-imparted personal righteousness but by a strictly imputed righteousness instead while the person still remains a sinner. This is so foreign to the true gospel as undestood by all from the beginning. Where Sola Fide equals, for all practoical purposes, sola the remission of sin, in truth, justification entails both the remission of sin and the imparted righteousness given with which we work our salvation. That's the message all throughout Romans, for one. This bears repeating, even tho I fear it will continue to fall on deaf ears:
"What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:21-22

Justification and sanctification are part and parcel of the same thing, sanctification being a contination of or growth in the journey towards our purpose and perfection that God set us on through faith.

As long as this notion; i.e., "God knows what man needs to learn"--so suitable to man's fancy--is your understanding of saving faith, you will never understand NT faith.

Um, God's always known what man needs to learn-what Adam didn't yet appreciate in Eden. And He's been patiently working with us for centuries since the Fall to get us there, rather than just saving us to begin with, rather than just "disposing" us towards Himself to begin with. Instead, when the "fulness of time " had come He sent His Son to reveal, by every word and deed, what we need to learn. Hopefullly by now man will be able to appreciate this, appreciate Him, having become jaded enough of sin and the world'[s ways and values so that he might turn, and respond to His revelation and the grace that draws us to Himself. Some open the door when He knocks, some don't. He prompts us to open it but never opens it for us- just as He allowed Adam to close it to begin with in Eden.

 

[fhansen]

So, you are saying that man EARNS his salvation now? Certainly sounds that way!

It's a joint effort; God leading, us following, or not. That's the way He wants it, at His sovereign discretion, according to His perfect wisdom and will.

Nevertheless, both your statements there are bogus, man-made. You don't know what God would have done. But you keep insisting on self-determination by the creature.

I keep insisting on a sane gospel from a sane God who's revealed His nature and will and both are consistent with sanity. Calvinisim, by comparison, is not. You have more homework to do.

 

[fhansen]

In comparison to the airy fanciful notions of man, I'm not surprised you experience the exoteric Scriptures as "wooden."

And your's are airy faincful notions based on wooden interpretations.

Nor is it about shallow or deep, it's about God's revelation.

It's as shallow or deep as He makes it. You, just haven't delved deeply enough yet.

 

[Light of the East]

Any physical performance (e.g., Mosaic law) required for salvation.

Well, I don't think I have ever met or heard of any Christians trying to keep the Mosaic law. Do you have examples?

 

[fhansen]

Well, I don't think I have ever met or heard of any Christians trying to keep the Mosaic law. Do you have examples?

Many Christians believe we're still obligated to keep the ten commandments, albeit by the Spirit now, by grace. That grace, and the union with God that it flows from, is the heart of the new covenant.