toldailytopic: Do good works play a part in your salvation?

[csuguy]

Of course works play a part in our salvation, they are vital to it. I do not mean to say that works EARN us salvation, for they do not. However, there are requirements to be saved.

To prove this point I will point out a few other requirements which do not earn us salvation, but which are required all the same:

*Repentance
*Forgiving Others Who Sin Against Us
*Spiritual Baptism
*One CANNOT reject Christ/God, else they will be rejected in the judgment
*One must lose their life to save it (aka devote it to God)

Once you can accept these as requirements which don't merit you salvation, especially the last point, you can appreciate the fact that works falls in among them. Works don't earn us salvation, but are a requirement to be saved. This can be thought of, in a way, kinda like the parable of the debtor who begs to be forgiven his debts. The gracious lord forgives him. However, the debtor turns around to someone who owes him a little money. This 2nd debtor begs forgiveness for his debt, which was quite small compared to the 1st debtor, but the 1st debtor refuses to forgive him and is quite cruel to him for not paying him back. The lord hears of this and so rescinds his mercy to the 1st and instead sends him to jail and has him beaten until he can repay his debt (which he can't).

In very much the same way, and more so, we have been shown much grace and mercy. But there are requirements to this mercy and grace, and if we fail to live up to these requirements then we may very well find ourselves in the same situation as the 1st debtor. The parable is most easily related to forgiving others, but the principles carries over not just into forgiveness of others but really into all aspects of our lives. For, unlike the parable where the lord simply forgave a debt from his wealth, Jesus didn't simply forgive us. No, he dedicated his life to us, he gave it for us, he very much surrendered himself as a servant to mankind in order to save us. The mercy and grace shown us is very much superior to that given to the debtor, and that carries over into the requirements to receive/maintain this mercy.

We likewise must give our lives - to God and to man. After all, remember that while the 2nd Greatest Commandment in the OT is to Love your neighbor as yourself, Jesus advances this commandment further telling us to love our neighbors as HE has loved us. That means devoting your life to your fellow man (2ndly to devoting your life to God).

If you do not do works, but think that all you need is faith, look at Matthew 25 and the parable of the sheep and the goats (or any other parable in that chapter really). The distinction between the sheep and goats has NOTHING to do with faith - it has EVERYTHING to do with works. Did you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, defend the weak? If you did NOT, then don't count on your faith to save you: when judgment comes Jesus will tell you to depart for he does not know you!

Like James 2 makes it abundantly clear: "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? ... faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead... You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?"

Even Paul, contrary to popular opinion, is adamant about works:
Romans 2: 5-11 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

 

[unknown]

Do good works play a part in your salvation?

It is not really possible to do a altruistic act in this world, (None is "Good"). The human ego must always receive. Every choice a person makes calculates, "which of these options is better for me?".

It is said, "It is better to give than receive", so we give, thinking it is better for us (which is an egoistical act). This " scale of merit" we use to measure the value of a thing to us is also called "the knowledge of good and evil". This is imprinted on us from above, it is our nature.

1 John 5:18

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

When this happens we know that God has changed us. All we can "do" is desire (with all our heart) for this to happen. The study of these matters doesn't give us an answer, but the effort is a prayer to God. It naturally follows that our effort (desire) must be sincere. If we are successful in our effort we no longer "sin", meaning we will are no longer using a scale of merit to measure our behavior, it is, in fact, not our behavior at that point but God working thru us. This is why "good works" are a sign of being "born of God".

 

[Town Heretic]

Why don't you give your definition of "works" so one can actually make out what you are saying. What you just said seems like yet another gross misrepresentation,

Is that "another" like your previous "again"...Works are those things we do in response and gratitude for the work of Christ, which is our deliverance from the wages of sin.

especially since I merely echoed St. Paul's words, but maybe I am wrong. What exactly does it mean? Why would the words of St. Paul elicit your differing, is it merely because they come from my mouth?

Or we differ on our reading as when some might see "Feed my sheep" as a command and obligation where others would see an illustration of what love should do.

Why? When Jesus spoke to the fisherman and said "Come and follow me," was not their following the very acceptance of that grace?

Does my walking into a store without understanding that it is one constitute my transformation from pedestrian to shopper? It was some time later before those fishermen understood either who they followed or what it meant to them.

Why are we to be joyful when we are able to suffer with and for Christ?

I'd say it's found in the "with".

In no way is God singular or simple in this way. None of the above are excluded by being "works" instead of "faith."

Excluded from what? None of these is on the point of salvation.

See your view includes "merit" (used in the same way you would use the word to describe my own view) on the part of man, which is ironically what you criticize about my own view.

I use the word merit and I object to the notion that it has anything to do with salvation.

You cannot say that your view requires response rather than merit without also accepting that my view is the same (else demonstrate the difference).

I can if you are under the impression that your conduct plays any part in your salvation.

A spoken word and a physical act are no different in God's eyes.

I believe we can sin by thinking. I don't know that thoughts absent action advance virtue. The thief's profession was not, to my mind, virtuous. It was self serving, if enlightened. The virtue was entirely found on the cross beside him and its work and its work alone uplifted and saved him.

You don't get to wave a wand and say that one is response and one is an attempt to earn.

I do if you are laboring under the impression that grace depends upon your continuing cooperation.

But works do not necessitate Pelagianism any more than "faith" does. :sigh:

We differ. Supra.

Why didn't Jesus just tell us He loved us? But I have never said that works are a requirement for salvation.

Then I mistook your "working out your salvation" as something you had a hand in. What does that mean to you?

But saying that someone can be saved without works is like saying that someone can be saved without literal faith.

No, it isn't. It's saying that the thief was saved by his reliance, which is only a work if you make that word and thought synonymous, which I don't.

A good tree will bear fruit.

Absolutely.

He lit a fire on the earth, He sent out his Apostles to convert and baptize, He points us toward the poor and the suffering, He specifically tells us to repeat His work and take up our crosses. Christ's sacrifice sorely needs repeating.

His work was the cross. The rest is commentary, important as it is by way of example and I completely agree that the world needs Christian activism.

So say the protestors. They seem to miss the fact that the commission comes from the Lord, not from us.

Rather, so say I, speaking for myself and in response to anyone who would suggest any part of our salvation is anything other than that completed work. "It is finished" wasn't a subtitle for Christ's physical death, but a comment on that work.

That our works are the fruits of His labor. I'm not sure how Christ reacts when people turn from the path He paved and turn their eyes away from the poor back toward themselves and "their salvation."

I imagine he feels the way a parent would watching his child make a serious mistake.

It is interesting that Luther's Scrupulosity pointed out dirt and introduced tar. We went from "give alms to get into Heaven" to "don't worry about works or alms or your neighbor, just worry about yourself and your faith. It's just you and God."

I think that's a peculiar position and no more mine or reflective of a Protestant mindset than a few unfortunate Catholic examples would be, offered on the other hand, indicative of your own.

God's call is always active, always mission.

"Be still and know that I am God." Under the sun, zip.

Every single time God calls someone in the Bible it is for mission, to do something. Faith without works is love of God without love of neighbor (if that).

Who's arguing against works? Protestants are a charitable people and zealous missionaries and advocates of the kingdom.

If salvation is marriage to God and God tells us over and over and over and over and over again to feed His sheep, to clothe the naked, to feed the hungry, to visit those in prison, and to spread His word throughout the earth, then I think it's safe to say that works are a big part of salvation.

And I'd say you're wrong. We know a tree by its fruit, but the fruit reflects the stuff of the tree, is formed from it. But it isn't the source of the tree.

Certainly faith is indispensable, but we see only through a glass darkly, and it must be remembered that faith is only a temporary Christian virtue. Once the unseen is made known, faith will not be necessary.

Really? Then explain Satan's error. How will you ever know that God is the founder of existence itself, that He is omni or any number of things you cannot experience?

In Heaven there is no faith. Finally 1 Cor 13 makes it undeniably clear that "faith alone" is not enough, especially 1 Cor 13:13 "So faith, hope, and love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

Faith needn't stand alone because it cannot stand and doesn't come alone.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Before I respond, what is your definition of faith and of salvation? How do you believe faith, works, and salvation relate?

Edit: you`ve also been speaking about Christ's work on the cross. What exactly do you believe that work was and did?

 

[zippy2006]

Sola Fide

Sola Fide

Here are some good articles on the topic describing the Catholic position for those interested:

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

Justification Sola Fide

Sola fide blogpost

Why does the Church teach that works can obtain salvation?

We Can Work It Out

General Catholic Answers search.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Before I respond, what is your definition of faith and of salvation?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of (conviction regarding/reliance on) things not seen Hebrews 11:1.

Salvation is deliverance from the wages of sin and reconciliation between man and God accomplished by Christ.

How do you believe faith, works, and salvation relate?

Not sure what you're after with this and I don't think I've given you any reason to believe my understanding here or my definitions prior are outside the main.

Edit: you`ve also been speaking about Christ's work on the cross. What exactly do you believe that work was and did?

Answered in the first of the post you're waiting to answer.

 

[bybee]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of (conviction regarding/reliance on) things not seen Hebrews 11:1.

Salvation is deliverance from the wages of sin and reconciliation between man and God accomplished by Christ.


Not sure what you're after with this and I don't think I've given you any reason to believe my understanding here or my definitions prior are outside the main.


Answered in the first of the post you're waiting to answer.

Well said. Love baby's hat!

 

[serpentdove]

you will be known by your works

it is what defines you

Works do not save (Eph 2:8-9). We are saved unto good works (Eph 2:10). Works are insufficient for salvation (Psa. 49:7, 8; Psa. 127:1, 2; Eccl. 1:14; Isa. 43:26; Isa. 57:12; Isa. 64:6; Ezek. 7:19; Ezek. 33:12–19; Dan. 9:18; Matt. 5:20; Luke 17:7–10; Luke 18:9–14; Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:20–31; Rom. 4:1–8 vs. 9–22.; Rom. 8:3; Rom. 9:16, 31, 32; Rom. 11:6; 1 Cor. 13:1–3; Gal. 2:16, 19, 21; Gal. 3:10–12, 21 vs. 1–29.; Gal. 4:9–11; Gal. 5:2, 4, 6, 18; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 3:3–9; Col. 2:20–23; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4, 5; Heb. 4:3–10; Heb. 6:1, 2; Heb. 9:1–14; Jas. 2:10, 11).

We contend for the faith (Jude 1:3).

Gnostics believe that they have special knowledge linger: which no one else can know (Lk 16:29,31, Pr 6:23; 2 Pe 1:19, 2 Ti 3:15). :dizzy: Anyone who trusts in the Lord Jesus can be saved (Eph 3:12). oly:

See:

Jude's Guide to Religious Phonies by Woodrow Kroll

 

[Totton Linnet]

Good works may play a part in someone else's salvation.

 

[zippy2006]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of (conviction regarding/reliance on) things not seen Hebrews 11:1.

Okay :think:

Salvation is deliverance from the wages of sin and reconciliation between man and God accomplished by Christ.

Is salvation compatible with sin?

How do you believe faith, works, and salvation relate?

Not sure what you're after with this and I don't think I've given you any reason to believe my understanding here or my definitions prior are outside the main.

Well it's precisely the topic of this thread so it's pretty important. What is your position and what are you attempting to criticize in my own?

Answered in the first of the post you're waiting to answer.

I asked it precisely because it wasn't answered but only mentioned in that post.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Okay :think:

What's to think about there?

Is salvation compatible with sin?

Compatible how?

Well it's precisely the topic of this thread

Well, no. The topic is works part in salvation and I've been pretty clear on it being a reflection of and not a means by.

What is your position and what are you attempting to criticize in my own?

I've set out my position and I've set out my difference with any other by virtue. I'm not attempting more than that.

I asked it precisely because it wasn't answered but only mentioned in that post.

Maybe answering the post will help clarify things to your satisfaction. :idunno: Couldn't hurt.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Well, no. The topic is works part in salvation and I've been pretty clear on it being a reflection of and not a means by.

Yeah? Well no one thinks salvation is earned by works, but basically everyone thinks that works play a part in salvation. CSU's post on this was good, so was AMR's:

I understand the word "salvation" to be the full orb of the golden chain of redemption, that is, foreknowledge, predestination, calling, regeneration, union to Christ, faith, repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. Thus one's walk of faith as a believer (sanctification) will necessarily show the fruits of good works.

AMR

This thread has been (and this is partially my fault) conflating justification and salvation among a number of other things. You are using so many undefined and apparently non-agreed upon definitions in that post of yours that I don't really know where to start, I don't know if we are getting anywhere, I'm not even sure what you're saying or what you're criticizing, I don't understand your position very well, and I don't have the time to answer that long post at the moment.

If all you mean to say is that man-made works do not earn salvation or even advance it whatsoever, then I agree with that. Is there anything else? :idunno:

Compatible how?

Where I suspect we differ is this: I think salvation is the culmination of a number of steps, it is perfection in Christ, sinlessness, seeing His face. You seem to think that salvation is compatible with sin. To be more specific, I think that after some point we should actively strive for holiness in response to Christ's call. Even as justified sinners we should seek more, seek to be better, to grow closer to Christ. You seem to think that we should not strive after holiness, that the road is a much more passive one. And a large crux of this is that salvation is not flipping a switch for me. We are always growing closer to Christ and growing in love for Him. We always have the free will to turn back, justification is a large step in the right direction, but our human weaknesses require constant conversion and repentance. We can sin mortally and remove ourselves from a state of grace. But it is hard to tell what this all has to do with faith and works. I could claim all of the above with "sola fide" by saying that faith works through charity and grace, or there could be a different definition of faith that opposes what I just said. Those mere definitions should not be the issue.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yeah? Well no one thinks salvation is earned by works, but basically everyone thinks that works play a part in salvation.

In order then: if anyone thinks those works impact the question of their salvation I'd say you're wrong...and I suspect more than a few people do. And no, everyone doesn't believe works play a part in salvation. I don't, by way of example.

CSU's post on this was good, so was AMR's:

Not unusual, though I haven't read them as yet. Given I hadn't taken an opposing stance on that particular am I to take it a point of that praise was inferential distinction/dismissal? A waste of time you don't have enough of, if true, but suit yourself.

You are using so many undefined and apparently non-agreed upon definitions in that post of yours that I don't really know where to start,

You could start with a more accurate declaration, since that's not anything like it. So far the few terms you've asked me to define my understanding of haven't met with any particular objection. By way of example: faith.

I don't know if we are getting anywhere,

I'd say that seems to be at least half true. But I'm understanding you better every time you don't have time to answer me. lain:

I'm not even sure what you're saying or what you're criticizing, I don't understand your position very well, and I don't have the time to answer that long post at the moment.

It wasn't a very long post, would have taken less time I imagine than this bit did and if you don't understand me, given your capacity and education, I can only think you don't mean to. I haven't been particularly magniloquent or obtuse, haven't hidden my notions via some peculiar lexicon...so... :idunno:

If all you mean to say is that man-made works do not earn salvation or even advance it whatsoever, then I agree with that.

I must have misunderstood your "working out" remark. At what point is your salvation secured?

Is there anything else?

Yes, the answer to the post you promised if I supplied you with the answer that I subsequently did.

Where I suspect we differ is this: I think salvation is the culmination of a number of steps, it is perfection in Christ, sinlessness, seeing His face.

I think salvation is in the work of the cross and our acceptance of that, reliance on it and reconciliation through it.

You seem to think that salvation is compatible with sin.

I'd have to know the answer to the question I asked the last time you wrote this to know how to answer you.

To be more specific, I think that after some point we should actively strive for holiness in response to Christ's call.

Where I'd say we should follow the best example of love and do so in gratitude and out of our abundance in response to Christ's gift.

You seem to think that we should not strive after holiness, that the road is a much more passive one.

Edit: I don't think of it in those yardstick terms. Inherent in striving after is a measurement in relation to, which is a breeding ground for seeing yourself as more enlightened and advanced than your brother. Now if the terms don't lead one to the edge of that fall I don't have a problem with it.

And a large crux of this is that salvation is not flipping a switch for me.

That seems little more than an attempt to place a different understanding in a trivial sort of light, especially since I've never suggested that as the case. I know in my case it followed a remarkably hard self examination before the Holy. But I think there's salvation and the process of growing closer to God through the walk that follows it. To my mind they aren't the same thing.

We can sin mortally and remove ourselves from a state of grace.

You mean our actions determine our salvation then--and we're right back at that answer.

:e4e:

 

[Lighthouse]

Good works are a sine qua non ("without which not"). Good works won't get you to heaven. If you don't do good works, or worse, if you do bad works, that might get you to Hell.

Can you prove that?

Why do you think including Romans 1 has an effect on my using Romans 2:1-8 in this thread?

I may just be having an averse reaction because I've seen those verses used for arguments that are false so many times.

My point is that Romans 1 has a bearing on those verses because it shows that Paul is saying the exact same thing Jesus was in Matthew 7:15, re: judging.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

We can sin mortally and remove ourselves from a state of grace.

If by this you mean the regenerated can somehow become unregenerated, and then be consigned to eternal damnation, then we would differ. The believer will persevere to the end. Those that do not were never regenerated in the first place. My post on the matter of what salvation means in no way implies works by the believer merit anything as relates to determining the believer's eternal destiny. That merit belongs to Christ alone. "It is finished" was not a metaphorical statement or hyperbole.

AMR

 

[zippy2006]

If by this you mean the regenerated can somehow become unregenerated, and then be consigned to eternal damnation, then we would differ. The believer will persevere to the end. Those that do not were never regenerated in the first place. My post on the matter of what salvation means in no way implies works by the believer merit anything as relates to determining the believer's eternal destiny. That merit belongs to Christ alone. "It is finished" was not a metaphorical statement or hyperbole.

AMR

I understand that much of your view. I don't believe the sinner merits anything relating to eternal destiny either, but we clearly see a difference in the response on the part of the believer, which I do not consider a merit or an earning.

:e4e:

 

[graceandpeace]

Do good works play a part in your salvation?

Works of the old covenant law can never make a man right with God/ (righteous).

It was given to lead men to Christ, through repentance, and entering into the new covenant, in His shed blood. This new covenant will teach you to deny all ungodliness; via the holy spirit at work in your life, but it is His work, not your own.

Works play a part in a christian's life, because it is the WORKS of God displayed via the Holy spirit and the fruit of it.

Love, joy, peace, patience, long suffering, etc....are all worked out through actions. They are rooted in the spirit/Christ in you, but displayed by our allowing Him to work, for we are His workmanship,....and the vessel that He intends to use.

If you quench the Holy Spirit;.....you fail to be the light He wants to shine among men.

It will not cause you to lose your salvation, but, you can become worthless, if you quench it to the point of returning to unbelief, once again....grace is powerful...it teaches men to obey; if they are not obeying, they are shown to be retrobates.

I am not talking about returning to the letter of the law/which was written and engraven in stone, but, the law of Christ; works through love..and, the fruits of LOVE, JOY, PEACE, PATIENCE, LONG SUFFERING, ETC, AND AGAINST SUCH THERE IS NO LAW OF CONDEMNATION...(LETTER)

 

[zippy2006]

A waste of time you don't have enough of, if true, but suit yourself.

I don't have home internet access, so I can generally read but not write with a 3G kindle. I can also make shorter posts from work and sometimes get to the library.

You could start with a more accurate declaration, since that's not anything like it. So far the few terms you've asked me to define my understanding of haven't met with any particular objection. By way of example: faith.

We're talking about the relation of these things, so the fact that you refused to give your definition of many of them makes that rather hard.

I must have misunderstood your "working out" remark. At what point is your salvation secured?

When I'm in Heaven.

Yes, the answer to the post you promised if I supplied you with the answer that I subsequently did.

Rather, the post that I didn't promise if you supplied me with the answers that you demonstrably didn't.

I think salvation is in the work of the cross and our acceptance of that, reliance on it and reconciliation through it.

Lovely, now if you'd go back and explain what you mean by Christ's work on the cross maybe we can make some sense of that.

I'd have to know the answer to the question I asked the last time you wrote this to know how to answer you.

The definition you gave for salvation is what is generally known as justification, which is symptomatic of you whole cause here. I asked if salvation is compatible with sin. I'm not sure how to make that question any clearer. Can you be saved and yet sin? Even Protestants will technically distinguish between actual salvation and assurance of it.

You seem to think that we should not strive after holiness, that the road is a much more passive one.

Edit: I don't think of it in those yardstick terms. Inherent in striving after is a measurement in relation to, which is a breeding ground for seeing yourself as more enlightened and advanced than your brother. Now if the terms don't lead one to the edge of that fall I don't have a problem with it.

Inherent in "holiness" is the opposite of your concern. :think:

And a large crux of this is that salvation is not flipping a switch for me.

That seems little more than an attempt to place a different understanding in a trivial sort of light, especially since I've never suggested that as the case. I know in my case it followed a remarkably hard self examination before the Holy.

Mine was only a temporal distinction, not one of ease.

But I think there's salvation and the process of growing closer to God through the walk that follows it. To my mind they aren't the same thing.

Certainly not, for what you call 'salvation' I would call justification, and the other is sanctification.

We can sin mortally and remove ourselves from a state of grace.

You mean our actions determine our salvation then--and we're right back at that answer.

That's a petty and cowardly conflation of a number of subtle topics on your part. I'm rather tired of it. lain: You are ignoring the drawn out explanations and qualifications that have been made and making it look like I believe that mere actions can attain salvation. It is a blatant lie.

If you cannot give up that stubbornness, I will be more technical: we can reject grace (and faith) and turn from God's everlasting forgiveness. If it is by faith alone, then what happens when faith departs? Hebrews 6:4-12 Furthermore, the fact that the rejection of a gift leads to not-having the gift does not therefore imply that one deserved or earned the gift (your logic is also faulty).

From here:

A mutual condemnation regarding the understanding of the assurance of salvation "can even less provide grounds for mutual objection today - particularly if we start from the foundation of a biblically renewed concept of faith. For a person can certainly lose or renounce faith, and self-commitment to God and his word of promise. But if he believes in this sense, he cannot at the same time believe that God is unreliable in his word of promise. In this sense it is true today also that - in Luther's words - faith is the assurance of salvation" (LV:E 56).

I don't plan on answering your longer post in it's entirety, and possibly not at all since it seems to me that we're now at some of the foundations of those less foundational issues and the statements that you made. If there are specific parts of them that you think require an answer then point them out and I'll oblige.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't have home internet access…

Sorry to hear it though that probably promotes a generally better use of your time.

We're talking about the relation of these things,

I don’t think I’ve been unclear in that regard—certainly not intentionally, which is all I can control.

so the fact that you refused to give your definition of many of them makes that rather hard.

I haven’t refused anything. I’ve answered where you were clear to me in your question and asked questions that would allow me to answer else. I can’t see any way around that.

Rather, the post that I didn't promise if you supplied me with the answers that you demonstrably didn't.

Well, you said, “Before I respond” followed by a couple of questions. That would reasonably lead anyone to expect an effort on my part would be followed by an answer to my questions and responses. It’s an implied promise that obligates the person making, but suit yourself. As to what I wrote, I did my best to respond where and how I could. If you weren’t satisfied, it would be up to you to ask specific questions to help me help you with whatever seemed unclear, just as I did in the post you haven’t had the time to answer yet.

As to your peculiar habit of attempting to run and set parameters, this is after all a conversation, not a test and you are a participant and not a proctor.

Of course, when I've tried to be as direct as I can you meet it with this sort of thing:

"I think salvation is in the work of the cross and our acceptance of that, reliance on it and reconciliation through it."

Lovely,

Now who wouldn't dive in for that sort of thoughtful and appreciative response?

now if you'd go back and explain what you mean by Christ's work on the cross maybe we can make some sense of that.

We? lain: I will, in fact, answer with as much clarity as I can before this post ends and without calling your character or intelligence into question.

"I'd have to know the answer to the question I asked the last time you wrote this to know how to answer you."

The definition you gave for salvation is what is generally known as justification, which is symptomatic of you whole cause here.

Salvation a : deliverance from the power and effects of sin. Merriam-Webster.​

Which was my usage. So you think Merriam-Webster symptomatic of my whole cause?

I asked if salvation is compatible with sin. I'm not sure how to make that question any clearer.

But then you go and do it next:

Can you be saved and yet sin?

I've read a number of people with a number of semantic differences on this count. I'd say we're saved from the consequence of our natures and our willfully errant choices, but not that we're rendered perfect in thought and action or will be. As Christ has paid the penalty and I rest in him, I won't fear the judgement and separation that would await me else. Nor is my life reduced to a gamble that I won't be run over by a bus on my way to confession or before I can say my prayers.

You seem to think that we should not strive after holiness, that the road is a much more passive one.

Edit: I don't think of it in those yardstick terms. Inherent in striving after is a measurement in relation to, which is a breeding ground for seeing yourself as more enlightened and advanced than your brother. Now if the terms don't lead one to the edge of that fall I don't have a problem with it.

Inherent in "holiness" is the opposite of your concern.

I think it depends on the person striving and their foibles, but I did say that if it doesn't pose that problem for a person it's fine with me.

Certainly not, for what you call 'salvation' I would call justification, and the other is sanctification.

What I and Merriam-Webster, you mean. I'm speaking plainly enough and you shouldn't mistake me. As importantly, to me, neither should anyone who might not share more than a passing familiarity with our common faith. So if I tell you the wages of sin are death and that salvation is that which delivers us from it you should have a pretty good idea about what's being discussed, as should everyone else.

We can sin mortally and remove ourselves from a state of grace.

You mean our actions determine our salvation then--and we're right back at that answer.

That's a petty and cowardly conflation of a number of subtle topics on your part. I'm rather tired of it.

And that’s a continuation of your habit of personalizing and insulting without justification (no, the other sort) while you presume your reading is the only possible, rational understanding and that a contrary one must be this contemptibly described thing...If you can negate the work of the cross, by which I mean the rather uncomplicated payment for your sin and my sin and everyone who follows after the thief on the cross, by which a man might escape judgment and enter into relation with God, then salvation is something you control. Your actions lead to it--your salvation/freedom from that judgement that would separate you eternally from God--in that you conform or deviate and in doing so decide your fate.

You are ignoring the drawn out explanations and qualifications that have been made and making it look like I believe that mere actions can attain salvation. It is a blatant lie.

So now I’m a liar to boot. You need to wise up and conduct yourself with half the temperance you stamp your foot after any semblance of want you imagine you see in others (and by others I mean me). There’s a difference between us, but it’s an honest one. And I haven't had to resort to insulting your intelligence or character to advance my part in it.

I don't plan on answering your longer post in it's entirety, and possibly not at all

I expected you might not. I'm learning that what you say and what you mean aren't always on the same page, so to speak.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Note again that I cannot keep up with such long posts. If they continue I'll likely have to cut out quite a bit.

Sorry to hear it though that probably promotes a generally better use of your time.

True enough, and for that reason it is at least half intentional at this point.

We're talking about the relation of these things, so the fact that you refused to give your definition of many of them makes that rather hard.

I haven’t refused anything. I’ve answered where you were clear to me in your question and asked questions that would allow me to answer else. I can’t see any way around that.

That’s incorrect. You simply failed to answer two of my questions, including further requests.

Well, you said, “Before I respond” followed by a couple of questions. That would reasonably lead anyone to expect an effort on my part would be followed by an answer to my questions and responses. It’s an implied promise that obligates the person making, but suit yourself. It doesn't invite cooperation though.

I cited a large number of reasons for why I have not been answering that post. I then offered that you point out any specific pieces of that post that you think haven’t been since covered so that I might answer them for you, and in return you cut out the context and made it look as if I had simply refused to answer it.

You asked after a definition, which I supplied, posed another involving relation that I wasn’t clear on and which required clarification

And after that clarification was given (“What is your position and what are you attempting to criticize in my own?”) I received the generous, “I've set out my position and I've set out my difference with any other by virtue. I'm not attempting more than that.” It’s certainly nothing approaching an answer.

--and the last inquiry I’d only just answered, as far as I understood your question, in the prior post.

Well, what you did is you used “Work of the cross” in a sentence, which isn’t actually an answer to my initial question but the very thing that triggered it. I asked you what that actually meant. Now in this last post you actually give something of an answer to that question, if vague. :up:

Of course, when I've tried to be as direct as I can you meet it with this sort of thing:

"I think salvation is in the work of the cross and our acceptance of that, reliance on it and reconciliation through it."

Lovely,

Now who wouldn't dive in for that sort of thoughtful and appreciative response?

Well TH, when I ask you what you mean by “work of the cross,” and then after dodging that question a few times, you make a statement with that same nebulous phrase sitting at its center, you shouldn’t expect the crowd to start applauding. My statement wasn’t unappreciative, it was simply pointing out those nagging facts.

I will, in fact, answer with as much clarity as I can before this post ends and without calling your character or intelligence into question.

…Seems risky to change your strategy so drastically after a dozen posts.

Salvation a : deliverance from the power and effects of sin. Merriam-Webster.

Which was my usage. So you think Merriam-Webster symptomatic of my whole cause?

Here are your words, “Salvation is deliverance from the wages of sin and reconciliation between man and God accomplished by Christ.” The key difference between what you said (and believe) and Webster’s definition (and what salvation is) is “a (total) deliverance from the power of sin.” You’ve made it quite clear that that is not what you are talking about (for you believe that man can still sin even though he has salvation). Like I said, justification is the word used to denote what you are referring to as salvation. Justification puts man in right standing with God, undoes the power that the Law has over him (delivers him from the wages of sin), indeed forgives him his sin, and strengthens him in Christ. What it does not do is free him from all concupiscence, which is precisely what makes it the same as your concept of ‘salvation.’ Colloquial definitions (and I would argue common sense (note I am not here implying that you lack this capacity)) tell us that those in Heaven do not struggle with a sinful nature or ever have to deal with a desire to disobey God.

I asked if salvation is compatible with sin. I'm not sure how to make that question any clearer.

But then you go and do it next:

Can you be saved and yet sin?

I am at a loss to see how “Can you be saved and yet sin?” is a simplification of “Is salvation compatible with sin?” They both say the exact same thing in rather simple terms. :idunno:

I've read a number of people with a number of semantic differences on this count. I'd say we're saved from the consequence of our natures and our willfully errant choices, but not that we're rendered perfect in thought and action or will be.

Another good definition of justification, excepting the “or will be.” God can certainly achieve His end; “Be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” :thumb:

As Christ has paid the penalty and I rest in him, I won't fear the judgement and separation that would await me else. Nor is my life reduced to a gamble that I won't be run over by a bus on my way to confession.

Then we agree. :up:

I think it depends on the person striving and their foibles, but I did say that if it doesn't pose that problem for a person it's fine with me. :idunno:

Fair enough. :e4e:

Certainly not, for what you call 'salvation' I would call justification, and the other is sanctification.

What I and Merriam-Webster, you mean. I'm speaking plainly enough and you shouldn't mistake me. As importantly, to me, neither should anyone who might not share more than a passing familiarity with our common faith.

Addressed above.

We can sin mortally and remove ourselves from a state of grace.

You mean our actions determine our salvation then--and we're right back at that answer.

That's a petty and cowardly conflation of a number of subtle topics on your part. I'm rather tired of it.

And that’s a continuation of your habit of personalizing and insulting without justification (no, the other sort).

Sorry about that. Hopefully this post draws out the distinction you’ve thus far missed.

If you can negate the work of the cross, by which I mean the rather uncomplicated payment for your sin and my sin and everyone who follows after the thief on the cross, by which a man might escape judgment and enter into relation with God, then salvation is something you control.

It would then seem that you believe that every heathen in Hell has “negated the work of the cross,” and “controlled salvation.” :idunno: The logical conclusion of your proposition that salvation must be wholly uncontrollable on our part leads directly to Calvinism, to the absence of free will on the part of man with respect to that gift. Salvation is controllable insofar as we can accept or reject the gift. If you want to hold that salvation must be completely uncontrollable then you must hold that man plays absolutely no part whatsoever in the transaction; that it is 100% God.

Why do human marriages sometimes fail TH? Precisely because the human is fallible in his promises and decisions. In human marriage there are two fallible parties, in divine marriage there is but one. And to be more Biblical, I should say engagement rather than marriage. Justification is a promise. In the more orthodox Protestant’s case it is merely a promise to have faith in God. But we don’t always keep our promises, Israel didn’t keep theirs.

Furthermore, it is a rather complicated payment according to kmo, I, and pretty much every theologian, and you’ve not at all explained your actual understanding of it in this thread, which is one of the reasons we keep half running in circles.

Your actions lead to it in that you conform or deviate and in doing so decide your fate.

Again, that’s not what I believe or what Catholicism says. But the only person who could refine such a concept to separate themselves from Catholicism (or orthodoxy in general) is AMR. You yourself take back with your right what you’ve granted with your left. If you are actually going to categorize me by saying that salvation is based on conformance to or deviation from some standard, any standard, then you implicate yourself because you believe that human freedom is involved in salvation. You believe that insofar as one conforms to divine humility and accepts Christ’s gift they will be saved, and insofar as another deviates from that humility and refuses the gift they will perish. This whole thread has been an attempt to paint me black and you white with one brushstroke, which is precisely why I rather doubt that you have given my position or the topic at hand sufficient consideration. It’s basically what I did to the Calvinists here awhile back: I tried to simplify a very complex question (indeed, it is much the same question we have here).

i.e. You believe that faith or response, which is at least partially a human action, is the deciding factor in the human’s fate. Therefore you believe that human action determines the eternal fate. So we both distinguish between human action and human merit and we both deny that humans can merit salvation rather than receive it.

You are ignoring the drawn out explanations and qualifications that have been made and making it look like I believe that mere actions can attain salvation. It is a blatant lie.

So now I’m a liar to boot. You need to wise up and conduct yourself with half the temperance you stamp your foot after any semblance of want of in others (and by others I mean me). There’s a difference between us, but it’s an honest one.

I’ve asked you before and I’ll ask you again: what is that difference? Lay it out. :idunno: Until you actually do that, I’d advise you to stop mischaracterizing my position as Pelagianism.

And I haven't had to resort to insulting your intelligence or character to advance my part in it.

You’ve done it from the very first post. You seem to have this idea that if insult is couched in enough wit and humor it no longer counts. That’s certainly one place we differ.

If you cannot give up that stubbornness, I will be more technical: we can reject grace (and faith) and turn from God's everlasting forgiveness.

And I say you’re mistaken.

Well I guess you have the Calvinists on your side. :idunno: No doubt you’d also say (as you have to those like reasonator) that those who have fallen (such as Heb 6:4-12 and Mt 186, 10-12 make clear) just didn’t ever have “real faith” in the first place. It’s neither sensical, humble, or Biblical. Certainly there is a middle ground, but I simply can’t believe that those who are so sure of themselves in their salvation have a firm understanding of how great their sin really is and how great the gift of God is to meet them there. It is one thing to keep both eyes on Christ and off of the water; another to fail to perceive the water beneath altogether.

I don't plan on answering your longer post in it's entirety, and possibly not at all

I expected you might not. I’ve run into your problem in this regard before.

Remember that mischaracterization I noted, that lie? Well it exists in full force here. I prefixed a statement in which I offered to answer any part of the post I missed that you felt has not been adequately addressed with another statement noting that I will likely not answer that post “in its entirety, and possibly not at all.” In return for that offer I received another blatant contextual mischaracterization. :think: Furthermore, as I noted earlier, I have given ample reasons why I have not answered that post, not the least of which is the fact that at this point we have covered those ideas, not to mention the fact that you still haven’t answered with your actual understanding of Christ’s work. Here is my original post in its entirety:

I don't plan on answering your longer post in its entirety, and possibly not at all since it seems to me that we're now at some of the foundations of those less foundational issues and the statements that you made. If there are specific parts of them that you think require an answer then point them out and I'll oblige.

:e4e: