Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".

---

If a judge gives you a lenient sentence, you commit another crime, and he then gives you a harsher sentence, was his leniency never real? Has he taken back his gift? Did you have to perform in order to receive it?

I don't think so. Anyone who feels so entitled as to fault the judge in that situation is missing the point...and is likely to end up in worse trouble before long.

---

Do you see what's missing in your analogy?

The intercessor. He sits at the right hand of the judge and says "I represent this person. I paid for all his crimes already. Give him my innocence."

You are the one who is missing the point. In your analogy, you only have the judge dealing directly with the criminal (God and sinner). God, because of his eternal character of holiness, absolutely requires payment for sin. He can not gift leniency or absolution at all, or he violates his eternal character. We were doomed to pay the eternal price for our sins (separation from God - true death). The whole point of the gospel is that someone paid the price of our sins for us - Jesus. The "gift" is Jesus' righteousness and innocence, received through faith.

If God were to take back that gift even while Jesus remains innocent and righteous and we still have faith, then it was never a gift at all. The gift was given while we were sinners, and BECAUSE we were sinners - why then take back the gift because we are still sinners?

---

Jesus' righteousness and innocence aren't going anywhere. So there's no taking back of the gift. He doesn't pay the price and then say "I'm sorry, the sacrifice is no longer valid." What he does say is that it's our choice to accept or reject it, and the Bible teaches us that we do so daily.

---

The gift is the imputation (crediting) of Jesus' righteousness to us that we receive by faith in him. If that imputation is removed each time we sin even while our faith remains, then yes, that would be the gift being taken back. A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".

---

If a judge gives you a lenient sentence, you commit another crime, and he then gives you a harsher sentence, was his leniency never real? Has he taken back his gift? Did you have to perform in order to receive it?

I don't think so. Anyone who feels so entitled as to fault the judge in that situation is missing the point...and is likely to end up in worse trouble before long.

---

Do you see what's missing in your analogy?

The intercessor. He sits at the right hand of the judge and says "I represent this person. I paid for all his crimes already. Give him my innocence."

You are the one who is missing the point. In your analogy, you only have the judge dealing directly with the criminal (God and sinner). God, because of his eternal character of holiness, absolutely requires payment for sin. He can not gift leniency or absolution at all, or he violates his eternal character. We were doomed to pay the eternal price for our sins (separation from God - true death). The whole point of the gospel is that someone paid the price of our sins for us - Jesus. The "gift" is Jesus' righteousness and innocence, received through faith.

If God were to take back that gift even while Jesus remains innocent and righteous and we still have faith, then it was never a gift at all. The gift was given while we were sinners, and BECAUSE we were sinners - why then take back the gift because we are still sinners?

---

Jesus' righteousness and innocence aren't going anywhere. So there's no taking back of the gift. He doesn't pay the price and then say "I'm sorry, the sacrifice is no longer valid." What he does say is that it's our choice to accept or reject it, and the Bible teaches us that we do so daily.

---

The gift is the imputation (crediting) of Jesus' righteousness to us that we receive by faith in him. If that imputation is removed each time we sin even while our faith remains, then yes, that would be the gift being taken back. A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

I think we've agreed that a saving faith is not mere belief, but faith acting in love toward God. When we knowingly choose to sin, even though we still believe, we are not acting in love. To say we can sin without rejecting our faith is to render that faith meaningless. This is why the Bible says that faith without works is dead.

Let's take this out of the theoretical and into the personal realm for a moment. If you were to commit a grave sin, say adultery or murder, would you still feel assured of salvation? Or would you feel the need to repent before you could be sure?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".

---

If a judge gives you a lenient sentence, you commit another crime, and he then gives you a harsher sentence, was his leniency never real? Has he taken back his gift? Did you have to perform in order to receive it?

I don't think so. Anyone who feels so entitled as to fault the judge in that situation is missing the point...and is likely to end up in worse trouble before long.

---

Do you see what's missing in your analogy?

The intercessor. He sits at the right hand of the judge and says "I represent this person. I paid for all his crimes already. Give him my innocence."

You are the one who is missing the point. In your analogy, you only have the judge dealing directly with the criminal (God and sinner). God, because of his eternal character of holiness, absolutely requires payment for sin. He can not gift leniency or absolution at all, or he violates his eternal character. We were doomed to pay the eternal price for our sins (separation from God - true death). The whole point of the gospel is that someone paid the price of our sins for us - Jesus. The "gift" is Jesus' righteousness and innocence, received through faith.

If God were to take back that gift even while Jesus remains innocent and righteous and we still have faith, then it was never a gift at all. The gift was given while we were sinners, and BECAUSE we were sinners - why then take back the gift because we are still sinners?

---

Jesus' righteousness and innocence aren't going anywhere. So there's no taking back of the gift. He doesn't pay the price and then say "I'm sorry, the sacrifice is no longer valid." What he does say is that it's our choice to accept or reject it, and the Bible teaches us that we do so daily.

---

The gift is the imputation (crediting) of Jesus' righteousness to us that we receive by faith in him. If that imputation is removed each time we sin even while our faith remains, then yes, that would be the gift being taken back. A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

Agreed

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".

---

If a judge gives you a lenient sentence, you commit another crime, and he then gives you a harsher sentence, was his leniency never real? Has he taken back his gift? Did you have to perform in order to receive it?

I don't think so. Anyone who feels so entitled as to fault the judge in that situation is missing the point...and is likely to end up in worse trouble before long.

---

Do you see what's missing in your analogy?

The intercessor. He sits at the right hand of the judge and says "I represent this person. I paid for all his crimes already. Give him my innocence."

You are the one who is missing the point. In your analogy, you only have the judge dealing directly with the criminal (God and sinner). God, because of his eternal character of holiness, absolutely requires payment for sin. He can not gift leniency or absolution at all, or he violates his eternal character. We were doomed to pay the eternal price for our sins (separation from God - true death). The whole point of the gospel is that someone paid the price of our sins for us - Jesus. The "gift" is Jesus' righteousness and innocence, received through faith.

If God were to take back that gift even while Jesus remains innocent and righteous and we still have faith, then it was never a gift at all. The gift was given while we were sinners, and BECAUSE we were sinners - why then take back the gift because we are still sinners?

---

Jesus' righteousness and innocence aren't going anywhere. So there's no taking back of the gift. He doesn't pay the price and then say "I'm sorry, the sacrifice is no longer valid." What he does say is that it's our choice to accept or reject it, and the Bible teaches us that we do so daily.

---

The gift is the imputation (crediting) of Jesus' righteousness to us that we receive by faith in him. If that imputation is removed each time we sin even while our faith remains, then yes, that would be the gift being taken back. A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

I think we've agreed that a saving faith is not mere belief, but faith acting in love toward God. When we knowingly choose to sin, even though we still believe, we are not acting in love. To say we can sin without rejecting our faith is to render that faith meaningless. This is why the Bible says that faith without works is dead.

Let's take this out of the theoretical and into the personal realm for a moment. If you were to commit a grave sin, say adultery or murder, would you still feel assured of salvation? Or would you feel the need to repent before you could be sure?

---

The only answer Protestants can say is OSAS which of course is nowhere, made up, and didn't exist until the 16th century. No one wrote about it before then. No church father

In fact quite the opposite. Every church father wrote that salvation is through grace but works in love and demonstrating our faith are needed.

That's written fact. They can say well yeah they were all wrong but they can't point to anyone saying "faith alone" until 45 generations or so after Christ.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".

---

If a judge gives you a lenient sentence, you commit another crime, and he then gives you a harsher sentence, was his leniency never real? Has he taken back his gift? Did you have to perform in order to receive it?

I don't think so. Anyone who feels so entitled as to fault the judge in that situation is missing the point...and is likely to end up in worse trouble before long.

---

Do you see what's missing in your analogy?

The intercessor. He sits at the right hand of the judge and says "I represent this person. I paid for all his crimes already. Give him my innocence."

You are the one who is missing the point. In your analogy, you only have the judge dealing directly with the criminal (God and sinner). God, because of his eternal character of holiness, absolutely requires payment for sin. He can not gift leniency or absolution at all, or he violates his eternal character. We were doomed to pay the eternal price for our sins (separation from God - true death). The whole point of the gospel is that someone paid the price of our sins for us - Jesus. The "gift" is Jesus' righteousness and innocence, received through faith.

If God were to take back that gift even while Jesus remains innocent and righteous and we still have faith, then it was never a gift at all. The gift was given while we were sinners, and BECAUSE we were sinners - why then take back the gift because we are still sinners?

---

Jesus' righteousness and innocence aren't going anywhere. So there's no taking back of the gift. He doesn't pay the price and then say "I'm sorry, the sacrifice is no longer valid." What he does say is that it's our choice to accept or reject it, and the Bible teaches us that we do so daily.

---

The gift is the imputation (crediting) of Jesus' righteousness to us that we receive by faith in him. If that imputation is removed each time we sin even while our faith remains, then yes, that would be the gift being taken back. A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

I think we've agreed that a saving faith is not mere belief, but faith acting in love toward God. When we knowingly choose to sin, even though we still believe, we are not acting in love. To say we can sin without rejecting our faith is to render that faith meaningless. This is why the Bible says that faith without works is dead.

Let's take this out of the theoretical and into the personal realm for a moment. If you were to commit a grave sin, say adultery or murder, would you still feel assured of salvation? Or would you feel the need to repent before you could be sure?

---

Faith is purely within the heart. It's an assurance of something that you have no objective evidence of yet and the confidence that you have it (Hebrews 11:1). It does NOT require any act. True faith will, however, given time and opportunity, will ultimately manifest itself outwardly as the person become sanctified over time. "Faith without works is dead" is not saying that works are required to have faith, it's merely saying that a person who says they have faith, but has no works, has a dead faith. What about the person who comes to true faith in Jesus but dies right afterward? Is James saying that since that person didn't have works, they didn't have faith? No.

To say that actions are required for true faith to exist, would be adding works to salvation, when Scripture clearly states that it's by faith, apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9) and that's it's by grace; if it were by works, then it's no longer grace but rather a wage/reward (Romans 11:6).

Your statement "to say we can sin without rejecting our faith is to render that faith meaningless" is flat out wrong. It doesn't even make sense. Our faith is not in ourselves and our ability to not sin, it's in the finished work of Jesus. Sinning doesn't void the finished work of Jesus. And every single Christian who's ever lived has sinned after coming to faith in Jesus (if they lived long enough). Does that mean every single Christian rendered their faiths meaningless or rejected their faith? That's complete nonsense.

If I committed a grave sin like murder, I would feel that I probably wasn't saved to begin with (1 John 3:15), but any sin is forgivable (except unbelief) and murderers can be saved. Adultery? Jesus said undressing someone with your eyes is adultery, so I don't know too many Christian young men who never did that. Christians are still sinners, and to suggest that we "reject our faith" every time we sin is saying way, way too much. Our faith and our sin nature coexist within us. Paul talks about this very struggle in Romans 7. Our sin nature is a constant reminder of how wonderful the gift is that we received; it should not be a cudgel constantly beating the true believer down. We have peace with God by our justification through faith in Jesus (Romans 5:1). If we can have faith in Jesus, but we can still go to eternal Hell if we sin and die before we're able to do works to get our salvation back - that most certainly is NOT peace. That isn't "good news", that's terrible, frightening news. In fact, that situation would be no different than if you were not even saved at all. So how can that be the Gospel?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

I know! It's amazing how many people simply can't accept the plain meaning of 1st Corinthians 6.

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you are. But you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (THV)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".

---

If a judge gives you a lenient sentence, you commit another crime, and he then gives you a harsher sentence, was his leniency never real? Has he taken back his gift? Did you have to perform in order to receive it?

I don't think so. Anyone who feels so entitled as to fault the judge in that situation is missing the point...and is likely to end up in worse trouble before long.

---

Do you see what's missing in your analogy?

The intercessor. He sits at the right hand of the judge and says "I represent this person. I paid for all his crimes already. Give him my innocence."

You are the one who is missing the point. In your analogy, you only have the judge dealing directly with the criminal (God and sinner). God, because of his eternal character of holiness, absolutely requires payment for sin. He can not gift leniency or absolution at all, or he violates his eternal character. We were doomed to pay the eternal price for our sins (separation from God - true death). The whole point of the gospel is that someone paid the price of our sins for us - Jesus. The "gift" is Jesus' righteousness and innocence, received through faith.

If God were to take back that gift even while Jesus remains innocent and righteous and we still have faith, then it was never a gift at all. The gift was given while we were sinners, and BECAUSE we were sinners - why then take back the gift because we are still sinners?

---

Jesus' righteousness and innocence aren't going anywhere. So there's no taking back of the gift. He doesn't pay the price and then say "I'm sorry, the sacrifice is no longer valid." What he does say is that it's our choice to accept or reject it, and the Bible teaches us that we do so daily.

---

The gift is the imputation (crediting) of Jesus' righteousness to us that we receive by faith in him. If that imputation is removed each time we sin even while our faith remains, then yes, that would be the gift being taken back. A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

I think we've agreed that a saving faith is not mere belief, but faith acting in love toward God. When we knowingly choose to sin, even though we still believe, we are not acting in love. To say we can sin without rejecting our faith is to render that faith meaningless. This is why the Bible says that faith without works is dead.

Let's take this out of the theoretical and into the personal realm for a moment. If you were to commit a grave sin, say adultery or murder, would you still feel assured of salvation? Or would you feel the need to repent before you could be sure?

---

If I committed a grave sin like murder, I would feel that I probably wasn't saved to begin with (1 John 3:15), but any sin is forgivable (except unbelief) and murderers can be saved. Adultery? Jesus said undressing someone with your eyes is adultery, so I don't know too many Christian young men who never did that.

---

Jesus also equates anger with murder in the same passage. If you were angry with a brother, would you feel you had never been saved?

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

I know! It's amazing how many people simply can't accept the plain meaning of 1st Corinthians 6.

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you are. But you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (THV)

---

I see what you did there.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".

---

If a judge gives you a lenient sentence, you commit another crime, and he then gives you a harsher sentence, was his leniency never real? Has he taken back his gift? Did you have to perform in order to receive it?

I don't think so. Anyone who feels so entitled as to fault the judge in that situation is missing the point...and is likely to end up in worse trouble before long.

---

Do you see what's missing in your analogy?

The intercessor. He sits at the right hand of the judge and says "I represent this person. I paid for all his crimes already. Give him my innocence."

You are the one who is missing the point. In your analogy, you only have the judge dealing directly with the criminal (God and sinner). God, because of his eternal character of holiness, absolutely requires payment for sin. He can not gift leniency or absolution at all, or he violates his eternal character. We were doomed to pay the eternal price for our sins (separation from God - true death). The whole point of the gospel is that someone paid the price of our sins for us - Jesus. The "gift" is Jesus' righteousness and innocence, received through faith.

If God were to take back that gift even while Jesus remains innocent and righteous and we still have faith, then it was never a gift at all. The gift was given while we were sinners, and BECAUSE we were sinners - why then take back the gift because we are still sinners?

---

Jesus' righteousness and innocence aren't going anywhere. So there's no taking back of the gift. He doesn't pay the price and then say "I'm sorry, the sacrifice is no longer valid." What he does say is that it's our choice to accept or reject it, and the Bible teaches us that we do so daily.

---

The gift is the imputation (crediting) of Jesus' righteousness to us that we receive by faith in him. If that imputation is removed each time we sin even while our faith remains, then yes, that would be the gift being taken back. A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

I think we've agreed that a saving faith is not mere belief, but faith acting in love toward God. When we knowingly choose to sin, even though we still believe, we are not acting in love. To say we can sin without rejecting our faith is to render that faith meaningless. This is why the Bible says that faith without works is dead.

Let's take this out of the theoretical and into the personal realm for a moment. If you were to commit a grave sin, say adultery or murder, would you still feel assured of salvation? Or would you feel the need to repent before you could be sure?

---

If I committed a grave sin like murder, I would feel that I probably wasn't saved to begin with (1 John 3:15), but any sin is forgivable (except unbelief) and murderers can be saved. Adultery? Jesus said undressing someone with your eyes is adultery, so I don't know too many Christian young men who never did that.

---

Jesus also equates anger with murder in the same passage. If you were angry with a brother, would you feel you had never been saved?

---

No, he doesn't equate them. He said that you will receive the same judgement.

So, does this mean that you believe if you're angry with a brother, you are rejecting your faith in Jesus?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

I know! It's amazing how many people simply can't accept the plain meaning of 1st Corinthians 6.

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you are. But you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (THV)

---

I see what you did there.

---

I don't. Can you explain it to me, then? How does it mean that when we sin we reject our faith? That every Christian who has ever lived rejected their faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".

---

If a judge gives you a lenient sentence, you commit another crime, and he then gives you a harsher sentence, was his leniency never real? Has he taken back his gift? Did you have to perform in order to receive it?

I don't think so. Anyone who feels so entitled as to fault the judge in that situation is missing the point...and is likely to end up in worse trouble before long.

---

Do you see what's missing in your analogy?

The intercessor. He sits at the right hand of the judge and says "I represent this person. I paid for all his crimes already. Give him my innocence."

You are the one who is missing the point. In your analogy, you only have the judge dealing directly with the criminal (God and sinner). God, because of his eternal character of holiness, absolutely requires payment for sin. He can not gift leniency or absolution at all, or he violates his eternal character. We were doomed to pay the eternal price for our sins (separation from God - true death). The whole point of the gospel is that someone paid the price of our sins for us - Jesus. The "gift" is Jesus' righteousness and innocence, received through faith.

If God were to take back that gift even while Jesus remains innocent and righteous and we still have faith, then it was never a gift at all. The gift was given while we were sinners, and BECAUSE we were sinners - why then take back the gift because we are still sinners?

---

Jesus' righteousness and innocence aren't going anywhere. So there's no taking back of the gift. He doesn't pay the price and then say "I'm sorry, the sacrifice is no longer valid." What he does say is that it's our choice to accept or reject it, and the Bible teaches us that we do so daily.

---

The gift is the imputation (crediting) of Jesus' righteousness to us that we receive by faith in him. If that imputation is removed each time we sin even while our faith remains, then yes, that would be the gift being taken back. A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

I think we've agreed that a saving faith is not mere belief, but faith acting in love toward God. When we knowingly choose to sin, even though we still believe, we are not acting in love. To say we can sin without rejecting our faith is to render that faith meaningless. This is why the Bible says that faith without works is dead.

Let's take this out of the theoretical and into the personal realm for a moment. If you were to commit a grave sin, say adultery or murder, would you still feel assured of salvation? Or would you feel the need to repent before you could be sure?

---

If I committed a grave sin like murder, I would feel that I probably wasn't saved to begin with (1 John 3:15), but any sin is forgivable (except unbelief) and murderers can be saved. Adultery? Jesus said undressing someone with your eyes is adultery, so I don't know too many Christian young men who never did that.

---

Jesus also equates anger with murder in the same passage. If you were angry with a brother, would you feel you had never been saved?

---

No, he doesn't equate them. He said that you will receive the same judgement.

So, does this mean that you believe if you're angry with a brother, you are rejecting your faith in Jesus?

---

He equates willful anger with murder in the same way he equates lust with adultery. See also 1 John 3:15. "A man cannot hate his brother without being a murderer, and you may be sure that no murderer has eternal life dwelling in him."

You suggested that a murderer was never saved to begin with. Are there any other sins that a saved person is incapable of committing? What about physical adultery?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

I know! It's amazing how many people simply can't accept the plain meaning of 1st Corinthians 6.

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you are. But you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (THV)

---

I see what you did there.

---

I don't. Can you explain it to me, then? How does it mean that when we sin we reject our faith? That every Christian who has ever lived rejected their faith?

---

The verse should say that is what some of you were, not what some of you are.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".

---

If a judge gives you a lenient sentence, you commit another crime, and he then gives you a harsher sentence, was his leniency never real? Has he taken back his gift? Did you have to perform in order to receive it?

I don't think so. Anyone who feels so entitled as to fault the judge in that situation is missing the point...and is likely to end up in worse trouble before long.

---

Do you see what's missing in your analogy?

The intercessor. He sits at the right hand of the judge and says "I represent this person. I paid for all his crimes already. Give him my innocence."

You are the one who is missing the point. In your analogy, you only have the judge dealing directly with the criminal (God and sinner). God, because of his eternal character of holiness, absolutely requires payment for sin. He can not gift leniency or absolution at all, or he violates his eternal character. We were doomed to pay the eternal price for our sins (separation from God - true death). The whole point of the gospel is that someone paid the price of our sins for us - Jesus. The "gift" is Jesus' righteousness and innocence, received through faith.

If God were to take back that gift even while Jesus remains innocent and righteous and we still have faith, then it was never a gift at all. The gift was given while we were sinners, and BECAUSE we were sinners - why then take back the gift because we are still sinners?

---

Jesus' righteousness and innocence aren't going anywhere. So there's no taking back of the gift. He doesn't pay the price and then say "I'm sorry, the sacrifice is no longer valid." What he does say is that it's our choice to accept or reject it, and the Bible teaches us that we do so daily.

---

The gift is the imputation (crediting) of Jesus' righteousness to us that we receive by faith in him. If that imputation is removed each time we sin even while our faith remains, then yes, that would be the gift being taken back. A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

I think we've agreed that a saving faith is not mere belief, but faith acting in love toward God. When we knowingly choose to sin, even though we still believe, we are not acting in love. To say we can sin without rejecting our faith is to render that faith meaningless. This is why the Bible says that faith without works is dead.

Let's take this out of the theoretical and into the personal realm for a moment. If you were to commit a grave sin, say adultery or murder, would you still feel assured of salvation? Or would you feel the need to repent before you could be sure?

---

If I committed a grave sin like murder, I would feel that I probably wasn't saved to begin with (1 John 3:15), but any sin is forgivable (except unbelief) and murderers can be saved. Adultery? Jesus said undressing someone with your eyes is adultery, so I don't know too many Christian young men who never did that.

---

Jesus also equates anger with murder in the same passage. If you were angry with a brother, would you feel you had never been saved?

---

No, he doesn't equate them. He said that you will receive the same judgement.

So, does this mean that you believe if you're angry with a brother, you are rejecting your faith in Jesus?

---

He equates willful anger with murder in the same way he equates lust with adultery. See also 1 John 3:15. "A man cannot hate his brother without being a murderer, and you may be sure that no murderer has eternal life dwelling in him."

You suggested that a murderer was never saved to begin with. Are there any other sins that a saved person is incapable of committing? What about physical adultery?

---

No, actually he doesn't equate them. Read the verse.

Yes, real hate (not intense dislike, or willful anger) of another Christian would suggest someone doesn't have the Holy Spirit, thus probably isn't saved. See Curtpenn

I can't say the same thing for other sins like physical adultery, because there is no explicit verse that says it, like 1 John 3:15 does. But in general, living an unrepentant, sinful lifestyle with ANY sin is an indicator one is not saved.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

A believer who sins is not rejecting his faith when he sins. He sins because he is still a sinner.

---

I know! It's amazing how many people simply can't accept the plain meaning of 1st Corinthians 6.

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you are. But you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (THV)

---

I see what you did there.

---

I don't. Can you explain it to me, then? How does it mean that when we sin we reject our faith? That every Christian who has ever lived rejected their faith?

---

The verse should say that is what some of you were, not what some of you are.

---

Right, I got that. But how exactly does that verse show that Christians never sin and that when they do it's a rejection of their faith?

So you're saying that Christians can sin, or they can't? I'm seeing different things in different posts.

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you're saying that Christians can sin, or they can't? I'm seeing different things in different posts.

---

Where did I ever say that Christians can't sin?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you're saying that Christians can sin, or they can't? I'm seeing different things in different posts.

---

Where did I ever say that Christians can't sin?

---

You've said they can't commit murder. You're not clear about adultery. If you committed adultery, would you feel assured of salvation, or would you need to repent before you could be sure?

Sam Lowry said:

---

I see what you did there.

---

Indeed.

Yea, hath God said works every time.

The Hopium Version

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you're saying that Christians can sin, or they can't? I'm seeing different things in different posts.

---

Where did I ever say that Christians can't sin?

---

You've said they can't commit murder. You're not clear about adultery. If you committed adultery, would you feel assured of salvation, or would you need to repent before you could be sure?

---

Murder doesn't equal all sin. Saying true Christians can't murder is not saying Christians can't sin.

Whatever I feel in terms of assurance has no bearing on what Scripture says I can have in terms of assurance. I would not feel I lost my salvation if I committed adultery, though I would still feel the need to repent, of course. What's your point?

Do you believe we can't ever know we are saved or not? If so, then that goes directly against 1 John 5:13.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you're saying that Christians can sin, or they can't? I'm seeing different things in different posts.

---

Where did I ever say that Christians can't sin?

---

You've said they can't commit murder. You're not clear about adultery. If you committed adultery, would you feel assured of salvation, or would you need to repent before you could be sure?

---

Murder doesn't equal all sin. Saying true Christians can't murder is not saying Christians can't sin.

Whatever I feel in terms of assurance has no bearing on what Scripture says I can have in terms of assurance. I would not feel I lost my salvation if I committed adultery, though I would still feel the need to repent, of course. What's your point?

Do you believe we can't ever know we are saved or not? If so, then that goes directly against 1 John 5:13.

---

Are you saying some sins are greater than others? Does the Bible tell us which sins Christians can commit and which ones they can't?

If the Bible doesn't tell us, how can we ever know we are saved?

To be clear, if you committed adultery and died in a car wreck on the way home to your spouse, you would be assured of a place in God's kingdom?

I honestly think that the trouble biblicalists run into is that they read the scriptures out of context, as they would read an email.

Now obviously, some things in scripture are intended to address all people, in all times, in all places.

The moral codes in the Ten Commandments and 1st Corinthians 6 are two such examples. The observation that in God's Church, women wear head coverings and men don't is another.

It's an interesting fact that the practice of men removing their hats in church in obedience to scripture persists to this day, while the practice of women covering their heads in church in the west died with the feminist revolution in the 1960s. Go back and look at pictures of congregations at worship in the first half of the 20th century.

But take 1st John 4, and the admonition that all who say Jesus has come in the flesh are of God. John wrote that epistle around 90 A.D. At the time it was written, Docetism and Gnosticism were Satan's two traps, both denying this.

Since his defeat that first Paschal morning, Satan has been busily digging tiger pits around Calvary. Two thousand years later, there are far more of them, and far more sophisticated ones than existed in 90 A.D. For example, both Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals would say Jesus has come in the flesh, and neither are of God.

The context for 1st John 5:13 isn't the list of moral don'ts of 1st Corinthians 6. It is 1st Samuel 15:22 and Matthew 15:8. The coherent message of John 3:16 and 1st John 5 is that God so loved the world that he gave is only begotten son that you might be saved despite your broken sinful nature. The spiritual malpractice that occurs today is to try use this verse to guarantee people salvation despite their disobedience.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you're saying that Christians can sin, or they can't? I'm seeing different things in different posts.

---

Where did I ever say that Christians can't sin?

---

You've said they can't commit murder. You're not clear about adultery. If you committed adultery, would you feel assured of salvation, or would you need to repent before you could be sure?

---

Murder doesn't equal all sin. Saying true Christians can't murder is not saying Christians can't sin.

Whatever I feel in terms of assurance has no bearing on what Scripture says I can have in terms of assurance. I would not feel I lost my salvation if I committed adultery, though I would still feel the need to repent, of course. What's your point?

Do you believe we can't ever know we are saved or not? If so, then that goes directly against 1 John 5:13.

---

Are you saying some sins are greater than others? Does the Bible tell us which sins Christians can commit and which ones they can't?

If the Bible doesn't tell us, how can we ever know we are saved?

To be clear, if you committed adultery and died in a car wreck on the way home to your spouse, you would be assured of a place in God's kingdom?

---

All sins are the same in that they all lead to the same eternal price if one is not saved. But not all sins are the same in how they reveal a person's spiritual condition. A faithful believer who snaps at an annoying person in church committed a sin, yes, but I think we can agree that their spiritual condition is completely different from a satanist who rapes and murders a child to honor Satan.

It's an interesting question, whether a true Christian can actually be driven to murder or not (or true hate or not). A true believer is still a sinner, but the Bible does teach that going that far indicates such a poor spiritual condition that it shows one isn't actually saved. The Bible doesn't give a list of sins that someone with a true belief can't possibly commit (except for the passage about murder), but it does tell us that living a lifestyle of unrepentant sin (any sin) is an indicator of a false belief and lack of salvation. Regardless, assurance of one's salvation shouldn't be focused on whether they committed a certain sin(s) or not, it should be focused on whether one has true belief or not. If one truly believes, one is saved. The Bible tells us, that's how we know. Just believe, and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest.

Again, if a true believer falls into sin and commits adultery and dies before repenting, what they might "feel" about their assurance isn't relevant to whether they are actually saved or not. If they are a true believer who has placed their trust for their salvation in Jesus' hands (not Mary's!), then their salvation is not dependent on what they have done, it's dependent on what Jesus has already done for them. That's the basis for a true Christian's assurance.

Realitybites said:

---

I honestly think that the trouble biblicalists run into is that they read the scriptures out of context, as they would read an email.

Now obviously, some things in scripture are intended to address all people, in all times, in all places.

The moral codes in the Ten Commandments and 1st Corinthians 6 are two such examples. The observation that in God's Church, women wear head coverings and men don't is another.

It's an interesting fact that the practice of men removing their hats in church in obedience to scripture persists to this day, while the practice of women covering their heads in church in the west died with the feminist revolution in the 1960s. Go back and look at pictures of congregations at worship in the first half of the 20th century.

But take 1st John 4, and the admonition that all who say Jesus has come in the flesh are of God. John wrote that epistle around 90 A.D. At the time it was written, Docetism and Gnosticism were Satan's two traps, both denying this.

Since his defeat that first Paschal morning, Satan has been busily digging tiger pits around Calvary. Two thousand years later, there are far more of them, and far more sophisticated ones than existed in 90 A.D. For example, both Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals would say Jesus has come in the flesh, and neither are of God.

The context for 1st John 5:13 isn't the list of moral don'ts of 1st Corinthians 6. It is 1st Samuel 15:22 and Matthew 15:8. The coherent message of John 3:16 and 1st John 5 is that God so loved the world that he gave is only begotten son that you might be saved despite your broken sinful nature. The spiritual malpractice that occurs today is to try use this verse to guarantee people salvation despite their disobedience.

---

The context for 1 John 5:13 is all those who believe. Salvation is dependent on faith in Jesus' completed work and his righteousness being imputed to us, not on our own performance. If it were, then who could be saved? Aren't Christians still sinners? The coherent message between John 3:16 and 1 John 3:5 is belief. If Satan's been digging traps for people, it'd be the belief that Jesus' work was not completed, and your salvation still depends on your own goodness.

Nobody here is making the argument that salvation depends on ones works/own righteousness.

You are the one making the argument that salvation can be attained outside of one's obedience.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you're saying that Christians can sin, or they can't? I'm seeing different things in different posts.

---

Where did I ever say that Christians can't sin?

---

You've said they can't commit murder. You're not clear about adultery. If you committed adultery, would you feel assured of salvation, or would you need to repent before you could be sure?

---

Murder doesn't equal all sin. Saying true Christians can't murder is not saying Christians can't sin.

Whatever I feel in terms of assurance has no bearing on what Scripture says I can have in terms of assurance. I would not feel I lost my salvation if I committed adultery, though I would still feel the need to repent, of course. What's your point?

Do you believe we can't ever know we are saved or not? If so, then that goes directly against 1 John 5:13.

---

Are you saying some sins are greater than others? Does the Bible tell us which sins Christians can commit and which ones they can't?

If the Bible doesn't tell us, how can we ever know we are saved?

To be clear, if you committed adultery and died in a car wreck on the way home to your spouse, you would be assured of a place in God's kingdom?

---

All sins are the same in that they all lead to the same eternal price if one is not saved. But not all sins are the same in how they reveal a person's spiritual condition. A faithful believer who snaps at an annoying person in church committed a sin, yes, but I think we can agree that their spiritual condition is completely different from a satanist who rapes and murders a child to honor Satan.

It's an interesting question, whether a true Christian can actually be driven to murder or not (or true hate or not). A true believer is still a sinner, but the Bible does teach that going that far indicates such a poor spiritual condition that it shows one isn't actually saved. The Bible doesn't give a list of sins that someone with a true belief can't possibly commit (except for the passage about murder), but it does tell us that living a lifestyle of unrepentant sin (any sin) is an indicator of a false belief and lack of salvation. Regardless, assurance of one's salvation shouldn't be focused on whether they committed a certain sin(s) or not, it should be focused on whether one has true belief or not. If one truly believes, one is saved. The Bible tells us, that's how we know. Just believe, and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest.

Again, if a true believer falls into sin and commits adultery and dies before repenting, what they might "feel" about their assurance isn't relevant to whether they are actually saved or not. If they are a true believer who has placed their trust for their salvation in Jesus' hands (not Mary's!), then their salvation is not dependent on what they have done, it's dependent on what Jesus has already done for them. That's the basis for a true Christian's assurance.

---

I don't see how the passage about murder is any different from the passage about adultery, etc. Altogether it's a long list of things that will keep you from the kingdom of heaven. It's hard to believe it's there just so we can muse on all the things that hypothetically could have kept us from the kingdom had we not said the sinner's prayer.

Realitybites said:

---

Nobody here is making the argument that salvation depends on ones works/own righteousness.

You are the one making the argument that salvation can be attained outside of one's obedience.

---

Salvation is by the grace of God through Jesus Christ that we receive through faith, not through our ability to follow a set of rules.

If you are saying that our salvation is contingent upon our continued obedience, then yes, you are saying our salvation is dependent on our performance.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you're saying that Christians can sin, or they can't? I'm seeing different things in different posts.

---

Where did I ever say that Christians can't sin?

---

You've said they can't commit murder. You're not clear about adultery. If you committed adultery, would you feel assured of salvation, or would you need to repent before you could be sure?

---

Murder doesn't equal all sin. Saying true Christians can't murder is not saying Christians can't sin.

Whatever I feel in terms of assurance has no bearing on what Scripture says I can have in terms of assurance. I would not feel I lost my salvation if I committed adultery, though I would still feel the need to repent, of course. What's your point?

Do you believe we can't ever know we are saved or not? If so, then that goes directly against 1 John 5:13.

---

Are you saying some sins are greater than others? Does the Bible tell us which sins Christians can commit and which ones they can't?

If the Bible doesn't tell us, how can we ever know we are saved?

To be clear, if you committed adultery and died in a car wreck on the way home to your spouse, you would be assured of a place in God's kingdom?

---

All sins are the same in that they all lead to the same eternal price if one is not saved. But not all sins are the same in how they reveal a person's spiritual condition. A faithful believer who snaps at an annoying person in church committed a sin, yes, but I think we can agree that their spiritual condition is completely different from a satanist who rapes and murders a child to honor Satan.

It's an interesting question, whether a true Christian can actually be driven to murder or not (or true hate or not). A true believer is still a sinner, but the Bible does teach that going that far indicates such a poor spiritual condition that it shows one isn't actually saved. The Bible doesn't give a list of sins that someone with a true belief can't possibly commit (except for the passage about murder), but it does tell us that living a lifestyle of unrepentant sin (any sin) is an indicator of a false belief and lack of salvation. Regardless, assurance of one's salvation shouldn't be focused on whether they committed a certain sin(s) or not, it should be focused on whether one has true belief or not. If one truly believes, one is saved. The Bible tells us, that's how we know. Just believe, and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest.

Again, if a true believer falls into sin and commits adultery and dies before repenting, what they might "feel" about their assurance isn't relevant to whether they are actually saved or not. If they are a true believer who has placed their trust for their salvation in Jesus' hands (not Mary's!), then their salvation is not dependent on what they have done, it's dependent on what Jesus has already done for them. That's the basis for a true Christian's assurance.

---

I don't see how the passage about murder is any different from the passage about adultery, etc. Altogether it's a long list of things that will keep you from the kingdom of heaven. It's hard to believe it's there just so we can muse on all the things that hypothetically could have kept us from the kingdom had we not said the sinner's prayer.

---

The difference between what you and I are saying is this: you are saying one gets salvation, then when they sin they lose it; I am saying that one gets salvation and they can't lose it, but if they go on to murder or live an unrepentant sinful lifestyle, it likely means they were never truly saved to begin with.

As long as we have faith in Jesus, even while we are sinners, even while we still sin, that faith imputes Jesus' righteousness to us. The burden of being perfect under the Law for eternal life has been lifted. That's the gospel. That's the "good news". To say that we have to be sinless or we lose our salvation is saying that we are still trusting in our righteousness to save us, not in Jesus' righteousness only. It's unbelief. It's rejecting God's gift of grace. If you refuse this gift, you are returned to being judged under the Law and the burden of perfection is heaped back onto you. It means that despite your faith, you can still go to eternal Hell if you sin and die before doing the work necessary to "clear" you of this sin. This isn't good news at all, it's terrible, frightening news. That's not the gospel.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- "Work OUT", not "work FOR".

---

]-Now you're arguing a distinction without a difference. How does one "work OUT" there salvation?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- In the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus isn't talking to his believers. His believers are the "brothers of mine" he referred to, and they are not being judged among the sheep and goats. This parable is dealing with eschatology, as you'll note that the sheep and goats are not people who died and are being judged, they are people who are still alive on the earth after the tribulation when Jesus returns to set up his literal millenial kingdom (if you're not an amillenialist). Jesus' church is already with him and are already glorified, except for the ones who became believers during the tribulation (they're not part of the sheep and goats either). This is a judgement of non-believers.

---

??? What are you talking about? When Jesus comes back, that's it. That's the final judgement. The resurrection happens immediately. The judgement is going to be on ALL those left on judgement day.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- James 2:14 is making my point. James is implying that it's faith that saves, but it's only true faith that saves.

---

What is true faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- "Faith without works is dead" is not saying that our works is what saves us or that works are required for salvation.

---

I've never said that works are required for salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- James 2:24 is a commonly misinterpreted and misused verse. "Justification" in the sense that James is using it is different from the "justification" that Paul speaks of. Paul is referring to the justification that makes one righteous with God, thus saved. That kind of justification is imputed to us through faith apart from works. James, on the other hand, is using "justified" in the sense of "vindication" - when someone's professed faith is proven to be true through his works. God doesn't need that proof, though, he knows true faith from the beginning, apart from and before one's works, just as Paul said about Abraham in Romans (Abraham was justified before circumcision and before placing his son on the altar, and before the Law was even given to the Israel). In other words, we are justified by true faith, a faith that in time will manifest works. The important point is that one does not have to do works to MAKE one's faith a true faith, which is what the "works requirement" people are implying.

---

You are changing the interpretation of justification to fit your theology.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This is why someone can die right after coming to faith (temperature) before they're able to do a single work (bubbles) and be saved. What you "works requirement" people are saying is that you need the bubbles to be there or you're not saved. If that were true, then it necessarily means that the person who comes to faith in Jesus but dies before being able to do a single work is NOT saved and is in Hell. Is that what you believe? If you don't, then your whole argument and belief fails.

---

I've mentioned baptism by desire before. You reject. It.

Other several other verses reject your premise as well

Romans 2:6: "For he will repay according to each one's deeds (works)...
2 Corinthians 5:10: "For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done (works we performed in this life) in the body, whether good or evil."
Matthew 7:21: "Not ever one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Finally, Catholics can get on board with "faith-alone" BUT with it is faith working thru charity
Galatians 5:6: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love."

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- "Work OUT", not "work FOR".

---

]-Now you're arguing a distinction without a difference. How does one "work OUT" there salvation?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- In the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus isn't talking to his believers. His believers are the "brothers of mine" he referred to, and they are not being judged among the sheep and goats. This parable is dealing with eschatology, as you'll note that the sheep and goats are not people who died and are being judged, they are people who are still alive on the earth after the tribulation when Jesus returns to set up his literal millenial kingdom (if you're not an amillenialist). Jesus' church is already with him and are already glorified, except for the ones who became believers during the tribulation (they're not part of the sheep and goats either). This is a judgement of non-believers.

---

??? What are you talking about? When Jesus comes back, that's it. That's the final judgement. The resurrection happens immediately. The judgement is going to be on ALL those left on judgement day.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- James 2:14 is making my point. James is implying that it's faith that saves, but it's only true faith that saves.

---

What is true faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- "Faith without works is dead" is not saying that our works is what saves us or that works are required for salvation.

---

I've never said that works are required for salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- James 2:24 is a commonly misinterpreted and misused verse. "Justification" in the sense that James is using it is different from the "justification" that Paul speaks of. Paul is referring to the justification that makes one righteous with God, thus saved. That kind of justification is imputed to us through faith apart from works. James, on the other hand, is using "justified" in the sense of "vindication" - when someone's professed faith is proven to be true through his works. God doesn't need that proof, though, he knows true faith from the beginning, apart from and before one's works, just as Paul said about Abraham in Romans (Abraham was justified before circumcision and before placing his son on the altar, and before the Law was even given to the Israel). In other words, we are justified by true faith, a faith that in time will manifest works. The important point is that one does not have to do works to MAKE one's faith a true faith, which is what the "works requirement" people are implying.

---

You are changing the interpretation of justification to fit your theology.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This is why someone can die right after coming to faith (temperature) before they're able to do a single work (bubbles) and be saved. What you "works requirement" people are saying is that you need the bubbles to be there or you're not saved. If that were true, then it necessarily means that the person who comes to faith in Jesus but dies before being able to do a single work is NOT saved and is in Hell. Is that what you believe? If you don't, then your whole argument and belief fails.

---

I've mentioned baptism by desire before. You reject. It.

Other several other verses reject your premise as well

Romans 2:6: "For he will repay according to each one's deeds (works)...
2 Corinthians 5:10: "For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done (works we performed in this life) in the body, whether good or evil."
Matthew 7:21: "Not ever one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Finally, Catholics can get on board with "faith-alone" BUT with it is faith working thru charity
Galatians 5:6: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love."

---

It doesn't take much brain power to understand the difference between "work OUT" and "work FOR". Just try. English isn't your second language, is it?

Jesus comes back to earth to set up his millenial kingdom for a thousand years, and at the end of the thousand years is the White Throne judgement.

True faith is defined in Hebrews 11.

If you're saying that you need more than just faith, that you need to perform sacraments/works for salvation, then yes, you are requiring works for salvation.

I'm not changing any definition of "justification". I'm recognizing that the word has different meanings in different contexts. Can you falsify what I said about James 2:24?

"Baptism by desire" is just an ad hoc creation for Roman Catholicism to get out of a hole. What if the person doesn't desire it because they never heard about getting baptized? "Well, if they would have desired it if they knew about it, then it counts". And so on, and so on. So of course such ad hoc beliefs gets rejected. Water baptism is what Christians should do to obey Jesus, but your salvation doesn't depend on it. It's baptism by the Spirit that counts. And that happens upon belief.

Believers will be judged by their works to determine rewards, not to determine their salvation. So you DO think salvation is by works, then? You're all over the place.

"Faith working in love", even if does mean doing works, is not saying that the works is what saves you. Especially since Paul was abundantly clear that faith apart from works is what saves. Proof texting isn't going to eliminate what he clearly spelled out elsewhere.

I'm saying that there is no salvation for those who do not repent and obey, and that this requirement doesn't magically end when you pray a sinners prayer.

If you want to call repentance and obedience salvation by works, that is your misunderstanding.

Realitybites said:

---

I'm saying that there is no salvation for those who do not repent and obey, and that this requirement doesn't magically end when you pray a sinners prayer.

If you want to call repentance and obedience salvation by works, that is your misunderstanding.

---

How much obedience would be required? What degree of obedience is the cutoff point for salvation vs. going to Hell? If we don't know, then how can we know we are saved like Scripture tell us we can? See the problem?

The only problem is your almost pathological desire to assure people of salvation in the absence of repentance and obedience.

Is repentance a work? Is salvation possible without it?

How much faith is required? A nano second? A poco second? How do we measure if we believe enough? I kinda believe in UFOs, but…

See rhe problem here?

Well that and sola fide magically appearing in the 16th century. What a belief to hang ones hat on so a guy could get laid.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I'm saying that there is no salvation for those who do not repent and obey, and that this requirement doesn't magically end when you pray a sinners prayer.

If you want to call repentance and obedience salvation by works, that is your misunderstanding.

---

How much obedience would be required? What degree of obedience is the cutoff point for salvation vs. going to Hell? If we don't know, then how can we know we are saved like Scripture tell us we can? See the problem?

---

I think that's more the problem with your position. The required degree of obedience must either be some or none. If it's some, then salvation is not by grace. If it's none, then salvation is little more than the last refuge of a sociopath.

You get around this by saying that there's some unspecified degree of sinfulness that means you were never saved to begin with. But that begs the same question--if we don't know, how can we know we are saved?

The biblical view is quite simple in comparison. We have been redeemed, yet we are sinners, and we must continually seek God's forgiveness.

Realitybites said:

---

The only problem is your almost pathological desire to assure people of salvation in the absence of repentance and obedience.

Is repentance a work? Is salvation possible without it?

---

I think the pathological problem is the fact that you won't/can'tanswer the question, which speaks to a problem about your belief.

I assure people that Jesus means what he says, when he speaks to us through his apostles, that we are saved by faith apart from any works. I hardly think the biblical gospel is pathological.

Repentance is not a work. Having faith in Jesus for one's salvation already implies repentance, because one can not believe they need salvation from Jesus and not be agreeing with God that sin is a problem. However, this does raise an interesting question: suppose someone only hears that there's this Jesus who is the Son of the Creator who says that if they believe in him, they will have eternal life - and in their heart they believe it, and they put their trust in this Jesus, while not knowing anything about Baptism, repentance, works, what is sin or what is not sin, how to pray.... anything else other than what he just heard. Let's say he dies without doing any of those things, but continued to believe in his heart about this Jesus person and what he promised. Unlikely hypothetical, sure, but not impossible. Is this person saved, even though he never really repented of anything or obeyed anything? I say yes. Because the gospel is that faith in Jesus is what saves, not anyting else. What do you say?

I do think obedience is a work. Relying on your obedience to save you is relying on your own performance and righteousness, not on Jesus righteousness and finished work.