Works?

[Van]

Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say faith is a gift, it says salvation is a gift, Greek grammar precludes faith being the gift in view in this passage. Robertson and Wallace agree. Yes the pronoun does indeed seem to apply to the whole clause, thus the anticedent is inferred to be salvation, not faith which provides the access to the grace of salvation. And again, theory three ignores Greek grammar, or more accurate sets it aside.

So my view is accepted by scholars, even Calvinist scholars, and therefore does not dismiss the errant view with a wave of a hand, but rather with the accepted view of scholars.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

yet can one get salavation without having faith and grace from God?

 

[Reformationist]

Reformationist... you said "When you supplicate yourself before the Almighty, try telling God that you're merely thankful that He made it possible for you to save yourself by making the right choice."

Excellent points!!! I never thought of salvation from theat point of view.... in fact, imagining someone coming before God in the attitude that synergism produces makes me think of (Luke 18:11-12) The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'"
I can just hear someone saying "God I thank you that I was smart enough.... and spiritual enough... to have enough sense to decide to get saved.... that I was not like those sinners who apparently aren't smart ernough or spiritual enough to figure this out...."

blessings

Exactly. Many may claim such things before man but to do so before God is fruitless and results in nothing but humiliation.

God bless

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Reformationist;

How does the Word of God produce faith in some and not in others?

By listening. We can all hear but we do not all listen, that is with readiness of mind.
ILUVLIGHT

 

[RussT]

Russ, Paul goes to great lengths to prove that Abraham was justified by faith and NOT by his works... because he simply could not have been justified by works of the law as he was justified 430 years before the law was ever given!!!

I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that Paul went to great lengths to prove that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works of the Law. The ‘works’ that James says Abraham was justified by were not works of the Law; they were works of his faith. That is why I think it is important that when the word ‘works’ is used in the N.T., we make sure we understand what ‘works’ it is referring to. Usually the preposition ‘of law’ is added when Paul is contrasting ‘works’ with ‘faith’; but not always, and those instances where he does not use a modifier can cause disagreement over what he meant. As I tried to point out in my earlier post, Paul also uses ‘works’, or ‘deeds’ in a good sense, as that which true believers are to do. Sometimes he modifies this use of ‘works’ with the word ‘good’, which helps to differentiate what he is intending. It is this latter sense of ‘works’ that I believe James had in mind when he said that faith without woks is dead/worthless. None of the examples he gives of ‘works’ would in my thinking be classified as ‘works of law’, but rather as works of faith, those that naturally arise out of and prove the existence of the faith present.

 

[Van]

Romans 4:4-5 demonstrates synergistic salvation, God crediting our faith as righteousness. Jesus indicated that what we need to do is to believe in the One sent by God. Paul said, in answer to the question, what must I do to be saved, was to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Case closed.

 

[RussT]

The only people that are believers are those who have received God's gift of faith. This fact has been recognized since the beginning of the Christian faith.

Would you mind expanding on your statement that only those who have received God’s gift of faith are believers, and that this fact has been recognized since the beginning of the Christian faith? From what I have read in various posts, the best ‘proof -text’ for faith being a ‘gift of God’ seems to be Eph. 2:8; yet, from the comments of several theologians quoted in one of Epistomaniac’s posts, the general consensus is that ‘gift of God’ refers to ‘salvation’, with some saying that ‘faith’ should be inferred as being part of that, and therefore regarded as a ‘gift of God’. I would prefer to see a bit more explicit Scripture before accepting that faith is only a gift of God. As to this being ‘recognized since the beginning of the Christian faith’, I dug out my copy of Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly, and from what I could tell most if not all the early ‘Christian fathers’ believed pretty strongly in man’s free will. It wasn’t until the fourth and fifth centuries that this began to change. Kelly writes(pg. 356), “On the related question of grace, the parallel truths of man’s free will and his need of God’s help were maintained, although we can discern increasing emphasis being laid on the latter.” “’It is for God to call’, remarks Jerome, ’and for us to believe.’” “The part of grace, it would seem, is to perfect that which the will has freely determined; yet our will is only ours by God’s mercy. So Ambrose states, ‘In everything the Lord’s power cooperates with man’s efforts’; but he can also say, ‘Our free will gives us either a propensity to virtue or an inclination to sin’.” “Yet in other moods, with a lack of consistency that is understandable, these writers evince a deeper sense of man’s dependence upon God. Ambrose, for example, states that grace is not bestowed as a reward for merit, but ‘simply according to the will of the Giver’. A man‘s decision to become a Christian, he explains, has really been prepared in advance by God;”
Late in the fourth and early in the fifth century these two ideas of man’s free will and his need of God’s grace became polarized in the extreme by the teachings of Augustine and Pelagius. Unfortunately, what should have been seen as two coexistent truths became two irreconcilable dogmatic assertions, and we have been the worse for it ever since IMHO.

 

[Reformationist]

Hi Reformationist;

By listening. We can all hear but we do not all listen, that is with readiness of mind.
ILUVLIGHT

You haven't answered the question. All you've done is begged the same question in a different form. You contend that the reason that the Word of God is effective in some and not others is that its efficacy is regulated by whether a person listens. To this I would ask, why do some listen and others do not?

You see ILUVLIGHT, eventually, you're going to have to admit to the belief that God's ability to effectively convict man and bring him to faith is regulated by man's choice. The minute you do so, you espouse heresy.

Assure your answer does not require further paring down, i.e., you answer, "Some listen because they choose to listen," to which I will ask, "Why do some choose to listen?"

Thanks,
God bless

 

[izarya]

Assure your answer does not require further paring down, i.e., you answer, "Some listen because they choose to listen," to which I will ask, "Why do some choose to listen?"
Thanks,
God bless

Fulfillment of prophecy. In spite of Grace, and God's love, everyone's not going to make it.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Romans 4:4-5 demonstrates synergistic salvation, God crediting our faith as righteousness. Jesus indicated that what we need to do is to believe in the One sent by God. Paul said, in answer to the question, what must I do to be saved, was to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Case closed.

agrred that belief is apart of salvation

yet lets look at scripture a little bit more

act 4:9-12, acts 13:46-48, hebrews 1:14, heb 12:2, 2 cor 4:3-6

 

[Reformationist]

Fulfillment of prophecy. In spite of Grace, and God's love, everyone's not going to make it.

So your position is that God's grace and love are, in and of themselves, insufficient to ensure that someone inherits eternal life?

Pray tell, what must be added to the grace and love of God for it to save someone?

 

[izarya]

So your position is that God's grace and love are, in and of themselves, insufficient to ensure that someone inherits eternal life?

Pray tell, what must be added to the grace and love of God for it to save someone?

No, that's not my position. The fact that most Christians can't deal with is that just as the scriptures speak of salvation, they also speak of damnation. Yes, there is no condemnation in Christ, but all are not in Christ. As he himself said that he would seperate the sheep, from the goats. I might also point out, that these goats were convinced that they too were in Christ, as they said to him "Did we not do works in your name?"
To which he answered, "I never knew you."

 

[Reformationist]

The fact that most Christians can't deal with is that just as the scriptures speak of salvation, they also speak of damnation.

I am a reformed Christian. Believe me when I say I have no problem acknowledging that damnation is/will be a reality for all who are not in Christ.

Yes, there is no condemnation in Christ, but all are not in Christ.

I am not a universalist. I am well aware of this fact. I'm not sure why you clarify this but I'm glad we're on the same page on that point at least.

As he himself said that he would seperate the sheep, from the goats.

Okay. Great. Your point?

I might also point out, that these goats were convinced that they too were in Christ, as they said to him "Did we not do works in your name?"
To which he answered, "I never knew you."

Those people presumed that their place in Christ was proven by their claim that they did works in His name. Christ's rejection of them shows, quite clearly, that they were never His people.

To be honest, I don't see an answer to my question. Granted, I may have misunderstood your previous post but, it seems as if you're contending that God's grace and love are not the regulative agents in a person's salvation. Is that truly what you think? If so, what is?

God bless

 

[izarya]

To be honest, I don't see an answer to my question. Granted, I may have misunderstood your previous post but, it seems as if you're contending that God's grace and love are not the regulative agents in a person's salvation. Is that truly what you think? If so, what is?
God bless

Choice! You can choose to accept His grace and love, or not. In those who don't, prophecy is fulfilled (which is what I was trying to say).

 

[Reformationist]

Choice! You can choose to accept His grace and love, or not. In those who don't, prophecy is fulfilled (which is what I was trying to say).

Okay. Let me see if I've got it now. You're saying that, in the lives of those who "choose to accept His grace and love," prophecy, which is the revelation of the eternal decrees of God, is fulfilled, and, in the lives of those who "choose to reject His grace and love," prophecy, which is the revelation of the eternal decrees of God, is fullfilled.

Is that accurate?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Reformationist;

You haven't answered the question. All you've done is begged the same question in a different form. You contend that the reason that the Word of God is effective in some and not others is that its efficacy is regulated by whether a person listens. To this I would ask, why do some listen and others do not?

It's called willingness

You see ILUVLIGHT, eventually, you're going to have to admit to the belief that God's ability to effectively convict man and bring him to faith is regulated by man's choice. The minute you do so, you espouse heresy.

Of course you can prove I'm wrong. This isn't just a wild accusation, or maybe it is. You see the Parisee's would have said the same thing to Christ. If you think I'm heretical then you should have to prove that with scripture. I can certainly prove my point of view with scripture, why can't you? If you could have, you would have already. The problem is that your view is unprovable from scripture because it is in contradiction to it.

Assure your answer does not require further paring down, i.e., you answer, "Some listen because they choose to listen," to which I will ask, "Why do some choose to listen?"

The possibility of life. When man is faceing death at the end of his life man becomes intrested in listening to the gospel in hopes of learning how to preserve His life. Life after death has a way of getting our attention. Hell may not have anything to do with it. The fear of no longer existing is also a good motivator.
The reformed theory is that God must save men first in order for them to have faith. They can't choose whether or not they believe in Christ and there fore must be regenerated first. Being regenerated is being saved.. No where is this found in scripture but is an unprovable theory. The truth is in the example that Paul gave in Act 16:
There had been an earth quake that opened all the prision doors in the middle of the night. The Jailer was about to kill himself rather than face punishment for allowing his prisioners to escape:
Act 16:28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
Act 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
This proves that this jailer was seeking to be saved. This proves that Salvation is conditioned on belief. and they we must believe first in order to be saved. If you deny scripture then this is heresey. I haven't denied scripture. I believe God does choose and He chose that everyone might be saved if they would only believe.Jn 3:17

You insist that everyone will be saved if what I believe is true. This is because you refuse to see the truth of scripture. Some men accept conviction others run from it. It's there responsibility which can only be by there own choice.
The heresey ball is in you playing feild now. Do you believe scripture or not.

ILUVLIGHT

 

[izarya]

Okay. Let me see if I've got it now. You're saying that, in the lives of those who "choose to accept His grace and love," prophecy, which is the revelation of the eternal decrees of God, is fulfilled, and, in the lives of those who "choose to reject His grace and love," prophecy, which is the revelation of the eternal decrees of God, is fullfilled.
Is that accurate?
Thanks,
God bless

Yes, because just as prophecy promises salvation for some, it also promises judgement for many. What is it exactly about this that you don't understand or can't accept? Every word of prophecy will be fulfilled.

 

[Reformationist]

It's called willingness

And that's called, "not an answer." You see, now, despite my request that you consider your answer before you give it, I am forced to ask, "why are some willing and some not?"

Of course you can prove I'm wrong. This isn't just a wild accusation, or maybe it is. You see the Parisee's would have said the same thing to Christ. If you think I'm heretical then you should have to prove that with scripture. I can certainly prove my point of view with scripture, why can't you? If you could have, you would have already. The problem is that your view is unprovable from scripture because it is in contradiction to it.

First off, my accusation was contingent upon whether you espouse the view that God's ability to bring man to faith is regulated by man. If you do espouse that unbiblical notion, you espouse heresy. God is sovereign. Man is not. On the other hand, if you don't espouse the view that God's ability to bring man to faith is regulated by man then my accusation is not directed at you. Secondly, just because the Pharisees would have called Christ's teachings heretical doesn't mean you profess the truth of the Gospel. Thirdly, I have no ability, nor do you, to prove anything from Scripture and your baseless assertion that "if I could have, I would have already" is not becoming for a person of your age. You are incapable of proving your postion from Scripture for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that your postion is not supported by Scripture. It may be supported by your erroneous understanding of Scripture but the clear teachings of Scripture, when context is considered (as is appropriate), are in direct opposition to what you espouse.

The possibility of life. When man is faceing death at the end of his life man becomes intrested in listening to the gospel in hopes of learning how to preserve His life. Life after death has a way of getting our attention. Hell may not have anything to do with it. The fear of no longer existing is also a good motivator.

You haven't spent much time discussing the Gospel with non-believers, have you? You'll probably say you have but, if so, you learned nothing about where they're at spiritually. The truth is, many people are looking to obtain the benefits without the Benefactor. Faith doesn't work that way. No one comes to faith because they fear death. People may be motivated to listen to the the message of the Gospel but the regulative agent in whether they come to faith in the promises of God is directly dependent upon whether God gives them ears to hear and removes the scales from their eyes.

The reformed theory is that God must save men first in order for them to have faith.

No. The reformed truth is that God must first regenerate man and, in regenerating him, his spiritual polarity is changed such that, as a subject of the living God, he now seeks to serve his new Master, whereas before, when he was dead in his trespasses and sins, he sought only to follow the course of this world and follow his master, the prince of the power of the air. Try reading Paul's letter to the Ephesians. It's a good book and it may clear up these unbiblical notions that you have.

They can't choose whether or not they believe in Christ and there fore must be regenerated first.

Again, you show your ignorance of the reformed position. The reformed view is not that man cannot choose whether or not they believe in Christ. It's that he, because of his depraved nature, will not choose to accept Christ. Man certainly makes a choice. His choice isn't the regulative agent in his salvation but, as is taught in all faiths which desire to remain consistant with Scripture, man is naturally incapable of coming to faith in Christ without God's intervention (John 6:44).

Being regenerated is being saved.

No. Being regenerated is part of being saved. It is true that all who are regenerated will be saved but salvation is by the gracious imputation of the merits of Christ's vicarious atonement. It would be more appropriate for you to equate justification with salvation.

No where is this found in scripture but is an unprovable theory.

Let me ask you something. Is man naturally capable of coming to Christ or must God do something to man before man is able to come?

The truth is in the example that Paul gave in Act 16:
There had been an earth quake that opened all the prision doors in the middle of the night. The Jailer was about to kill himself rather than face punishment for allowing his prisioners to escape:
Act 16:28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
Act 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

You cite the imperative and presume a universal indicative. All Paul told the jailer was what he must do to be saved. He didn't say anything regarding what must happen for the jailer to believe. Our faith is a gift from God. We don't believe unto salvation because we are smart or holy or pious. We believe because God gives us faith.

This proves that this jailer was seeking to be saved.

And? You act as if this trumps something I profess. Scripture is clear. Man, in his natural state, has only disdain for the Law of God and is incapable of submitting to it. He considers the things of God foolishness. Additionally, we are explicitly told that none naturally seek God. None naturally do good. None naturally seek righteousness. All have turned aside. There no fear of God before natural man. If the jailer was truly seeking deliverance through Christ it's because God has given him faith.

This proves that Salvation is conditioned on belief. and they we must believe first in order to be saved.

Okay. Great. Thank you for stating the obvious. Faith is certainly an essential part of being saved. That said, it is God who brings someone to faith and He does so in accordance with His purpose and plan. Those who "accept Christ" do so because God has wrought in them faith through the power of His Spirit. They will never naturally come to Him and those to whom He graciously imparts faith always come and He will lose none that He has set apart to His Son.

I believe God does choose and He chose that everyone might be saved if they would only believe.Jn 3:17

Tell me, do you believe that God is omniscient?

Some men accept conviction others run from it. It's there responsibility which can only be by there own choice.

Your response to why some are convicted and others aren't is "they just are?" Wow. Snappy response. Good luck with that.

The heresey ball is in you playing feild now.

Here you go...this is clearly yours.

*Ref hands ILUVLIGHT the ball he dropped

Do you believe scripture or not.

Thankfully yes. It's the unbiblical nonsense you profess that I reject.

 

[Reformationist]

Yes, because just as prophecy promises salvation for some, it also promises judgement for many.

And do you think the fulfillment of prophecy deals with a particular plan of atonement, i.e., that God has defined, in eternity past, which people will be saved?

What is it exactly about this that you don't understand or can't accept?

Still just trying to clarify what it is you believe. Thanks for your patience.

Every word of prophecy will be fulfilled.

Oh good. Glad to know that.

God bless

 

[izarya]

Hello. The Bible explicitly states that we are not saved by works (Eph 2:8,9). I often hear discussions where there is disagreement on what is, and is not, a work. So, please give a definition of a work as you understand it from a biblical perspective.

Thanks,
God bless

work is defined as:
Activity in which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something: sustained physical or mental effort to overcome obstacles and achieve an objective or result.
A specific task, duty, function, or assignment often being a part or phase of some larger activity.
Exert oneself by doing mental or physical work for a purpose or out of necessity.
Performance of moral or religious acts.
In this sense, works could be considered preaching, ministering, participation in communal services (including church attendance), Baptism, and keeping of the Mosaic law which is probably what Paul spoke of in particularly, as this is what he contended with.

We are not saved by works alone, neither are we saved by faith alone.
James 2:17, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."
Romans 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

There is no contradiction here, there must be a sincere balance between the two, both faith and works are necessary for salvation.

Proverbs 11:1 "A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just wieght (measure) is his delight."
TEKEL