Christians...Saved By Faith Alone?

[savagewind]

What's the difference between a guide and being the salvation itself? So you're saying one doesn't have to actually follow the guide? So you can snip out 99% of what Jesus teaches while you're at it, since trying to obey Jesus would be "Trying to save your own soul"?

So when Jesus said you have to take care of your impoverished brother or you'll burn in hell, you don't really have to do that or listen to him since you'd be trying to save yourself?

What's the point in having a guide if you don't have to actually follow it and you don't believe it gets you anywhere?

If the love of God is obedience to the commandments, (1 John 5:3) are you saying you don't have to actually love God? When Jesus says if you love him you'll obey his teachings, you don't have to actually love Jesus? When Jesus tells the Rich man that the way to eternal life is to "Follow the commandments", he was just being facetecious? Why did he even tell the Rich man to sell everything and follow him?

Oh stop! I am the one who says to love God is to obey God's commands. You are he who says to obey God's commands is to love God.

To say that the guide is the savior is to make everyone the same. Who wants to live in a world, physical or spiritual, where there is no difference between the souls that live there? Surely you understand I would not be happy to live with only other like minded individuals?

A guide is like a map. It is a nonliving thing. Rules have no consideration for individuality. I follow a living Person. The Person of God considers what a person can do and can not do. Rules have no power to do that.

 

[Shermana]

Oh stop! I am the one who says to love God is to obey God's commands. You are he who says to obey God's commands is to love God.

Well, "The love of God is obedience to the commandments" is also what 1 John says. Not just me. I don't see what the difference would be between "To love God is to obey the commandments" and "To obey the commandments is to Love God", can you explain? Also, didn't I say "the love of God is obedience to the commandments" by quoting 1 John? So why do you switch it, in however you mean by switching it, to say that I said "To obey the commandments is to Love God" anyway?

To say that the guide is the savior is to make everyone the same. Who wants to live in a world, physical or spiritual, where there is no difference between the souls that live there? Surely you understand I would not be happy to live with only other like minded individuals?

How does that actually relate to what I asked?

A guide is like a map. It is a nonliving thing. Rules have no consideration for individuality. I follow a living Person. The Person of God considers what a person can do and can not do. Rules have no power to do that

Okay but what does that have to do with what I said?

 

[savagewind]

1 John 5:3 "obey" the commands is what you say it says.

The word for obey is téreó hold fast, keep

From teros (a watch; perhaps akin to theoreo); to guard (from loss or injury, properly, by keeping the eye upon; and thus differing from phulasso, which is properly to prevent escaping; and from koustodia, which implies a fortress or full military lines of apparatus), i.e. To note (a prophecy; figuratively, to fulfil a command); by implication, to detain (in custody; figuratively, to maintain); by extension, to withhold (for personal ends; figuratively, to keep unmarried); by extension, to withhold (for personal ends; figuratively, to keep unmarried) -- hold fast, keep(- er), (pre-, re-)serve, watch.

Which according to me is not the same as obey.

How do I know you go by the rule that to obey God's commands is to love Him? I have been observing you for several months, it is what you say.

 

[Shermana]

1 John 5:3 "obey" the commands is what you say it says.

The word for obey is téreó hold fast, keep

From teros (a watch; perhaps akin to theoreo); to guard (from loss or injury, properly, by keeping the eye upon; and thus differing from phulasso, which is properly to prevent escaping; and from koustodia, which implies a fortress or full military lines of apparatus), i.e. To note (a prophecy; figuratively, to fulfil a command); by implication, to detain (in custody; figuratively, to maintain); by extension, to withhold (for personal ends; figuratively, to keep unmarried); by extension, to withhold (for personal ends; figuratively, to keep unmarried) -- hold fast, keep(- er), (pre-, re-)serve, watch.

Which according to me is not the same as obey.

How do I know you go by the rule that to obey God's commands is to love Him? I have been observing you for several months, it is what you say.

Okay...so what are you saying that 1 John 5:3 says?

 

[savagewind]

Okay...so what are you saying that 1 John 5:3 says?

It means do not change what God has done. Do not expect more than what God will do. Do not reject anything that The Lord is teaching us. Keep it and let the sayings of YHWH be written on your heart.

Darby Bible Translation Isaiah 25:9
And it shall be said in that day, Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is Jehovah, we have waited for him; we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.

See? "we have waited for him". Where does it say "we have obeyed His commands"?

 

[Shermana]

It means do not change what God has done. Do not expect more than what God will do. Do not reject anything that The Lord is teaching us. Keep it and let the sayings of YHWH be written on your heart.

Darby Bible Translation Isaiah 25:9
And it shall be said in that day, Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is Jehovah, we have waited for him; we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.

See? "we have waited for him". Where does it say "we have obeyed His commands"?

What do you think "we have waited for him" means? Why was God destroying the Israelites and punishing them with the Babylonians?

You're welcome to that interpetation of 1 John 5:3 but I think you'll stand quite alone on that. If anything, thank you for the exercise in demonstrating that one can make up virtually any interpretation they want from any verse that's far removed from the context and words involved, it becomes rather difficult to argue at that point rather than showing how that's not at all what the text remotely indicates. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'll take the plain reading, thanks.

Besides, how does that relate to my other point?

 

[savagewind]

Besides, how does that relate to my other point?

Please, why ask me anything at all if I can only learn from you? Why do you care what I think?

 

[Shermana]

Please, why ask me anything at all if I can only learn from you? Why do you care what I think?

That's your response to my question on how your response remotely answers my point?

I guess I shouldn't bother asking you anything if you aren't going to actually stay on the rails.

 

[Walkntune]

If there is no condemnation for unbelievers, (justified by works), then what are Christians being saved from?

What do you believe they are saved from?

 

[Walkntune]

To enter Heaven you must be perfect.You can stand in your own righteousness under law or that of Christ by faith. Not both as it will no longer be a perfect righteousness!This is the only choice.

 

[Shermana]

To enter Heaven you must be perfect.You can stand in your own righteousness under law or that of Christ by faith. Not both as it will no longer be a perfect righteousness!This is the only choice.

So when Paul says that unrepentant sinners won't inherit the Kingdom, how does that fit with your idea?

 

[Falvlun]

Well there's a reason I follow that "ideology", it's because its what the text actually says. The idea that deeds are just what follow if you accept Jesus does not appear anywhere in scripture, and in a way goes against what Jesus says such as the examples I brought up. The way I see it (and many others), you have to snip out 99% of what Jesus says especially the parables to get anything close to the idea that your works are what "show you have the ticket". Jesus says the only ones who are saved are those who "endure until the end".

I guess the whole debate over faith vs works that's been going on, oh, just about forever, could have been put to rest if they had just asked Shermana what the text says.

The point being, of course, that the text supports multiple viewpoints. Some verses support the concept that faith in God is what saves people, and emphatically denies that works has anything to do with it: Eph 2:8 for instance.

Other verses support the concept that works are central.

And others support a synthesis between the two. Notably, James 2:20, and the famous "faith without works is dead."

I think the latter makes the most sense, both internally (from taking together everything in the NT) and externally (aesthetically and logically).

So how can you have the ticket if you haven't endured until the end?

Now I know that anyone can say "Well my idea is what the text says", but it's pretty hard to read the examples I bring up in any other light. In order to follow Jesus's teachings, you have to listen to all the things he says about how your behavior is in fact the determination of whether you get that golden ticket or if you go to H E double hockey sticks. In Matthew 25, he flat out says if you don't help your poor brothers, it's hellfire for you. That issue gets sidestepped virtually every time I bring this up with a "Gracer".

And with that said, even Paul, whom is cherry picked to death by the "saved by grace" theology, says that if you unrepentantly sin, you don't inherit the Kingdom. So obviously, in order to accept Jesus's examples, you must still earn the "points" by actually following his example. 1 John says basically just that, he who claims to know Christ but follow his example.

Thus, having the mindset is only step one. Having this mindset however is ONLY step one, you can't get the ticket with only step one. Thus, the deeds that apparently come from this example you claim to follow are in fact the determination. Having the wrong understanding of what it means to follow this example, even if you have the mindset to follow his example in whatever way you perceive it to be, will result in insufficient "points" to earn that ticket, and may even earn you negative points.

You misunderstand. I am talking about what pays the price of the ticket. That's what I mean when I say that good works do not save you-- you could follow the letter to the law, and it would still "profit you nothing". Jesus is the one who paid the price, full stop. I think it is important-- and something that Jesus emphasized himself-- to understand this: No matter how righteous you are, it's still not good enough. And in fact, if that is what you believe saves you, it is considered harmful (since it can lead to boastfulness, pride, feeling that you earned something from God that was given only because of grace, etc.)

But that is not to say that works play no part in a Christian's life. There is a difference between saying that works do not save you, and claiming that a Christian doesn't need to follow what Jesus taught. You are conflating the two.

I think this verse basically sums up the relationship between salvation through grace and the need for works. It is the way that I viewed it:

Titus 3:5-8 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men."

This article summed up this viewpoint rather thoroughly. I was surprised that the Catholic interpretation so closely aligned with my own, even though I was raised hardcore Protestant.

 

[Falvlun]

So when Paul says that unrepentant sinners won't inherit the Kingdom, how does that fit with your idea?

Because unrepentence indicates insincerity in faith; it is evidence that they have not truly accepted God.

 

[Shermana]

Because unrepentence indicates insincerity in faith; it is evidence that they have not truly accepted God.

Right. So therefore, one who has truly accepted God will no longer sin and thus obey the commandments.

 

[Falvlun]

Right. So therefore, one who has truly accepted God will no longer sin and thus obey the commandments.

Well, I don't think that means they will no longer sin. I think it's the effort that is important-- trying to obey the commandments-- since after all, we're all gonna mess up now and then. It's those who aren't trying at all that God gives the stink eye.

But yes, I think the two are pretty inextricably connected.

 

[Shermana]

I guess the whole debate over faith vs works that's been going on, oh, just about forever, could have been put to rest if they had just asked Shermana what the text says.

Yeah along with everyone else who points out the bits that the "gracers" conveniently ignore as I brought up. I specifically addressed the issue that everyone has their own idea on what the text says, except that certain verses which are crystal clear like the ones I mentioned are usually flat out ignored or twisted into a dramatically different meaning. When Jesus says that those who won't help their poor brothers will burn in hell, what else can it possibly mean? I stand by what I said. To interpret it as anything less than obedience to the teachings of Jesus and doing good works as the key to enter the Kingdom is to snip out what Jesus actually says.

This idea that works are not necessary is a very recent invention in Christian history, a post-Lutheran doctrine. It's a doctrine of convenience and one that involves not stringing together what the text actually says. I will be happy to debate that specifically and stand my ground on this.

The point being, of course, that the text supports multiple viewpoints. Some verses support the concept that faith in God is what saves people, and emphatically denies that works has anything to do with it: Eph 2:8 for instance.

And it just so happens that Ephesians is suspected by the grand majority of scholars as a later spurious work. Notice a pattern?

And others support a synthesis between the two. Notably, James 2:20, and the famous "faith without works is dead."

The synthesis is on the "works" end of things, he is specifically combatting the "faith only" mentality. I am promoting this synthesis and combatting the "faith only "mentality as well.

I think the latter makes the most sense, both internally (from taking together everything in the NT) and externally (aesthetically and logically).

And what exactly is the implication of the latter?

You misunderstand. I am talking about what pays the price of the ticket. That's what I mean when I say that good works do not save you-- you could follow the letter to the law, and it would still "profit you nothing". Jesus is the one who paid the price, full stop.

But you're not taking into account what I said. Jesus says if you don't watch yourself, you don't enter the Kingdom. So does Paul. Jesus says if you don't help your impoverished brothers, you burn in hell. How many ways can you possibly interpret that?

I think it is important-- and something that Jesus emphasized himself-- to understand this: No matter how righteous you are, it's still not good enough. And in fact, if that is what you believe saves you, it is considered harmful (since it can lead to boastfulness, pride, feeling that you earned something from God that was given only because of grace, etc.)

Where did Jesus emphasize this exactly? Verses please. Try not to confuse Lutheran doctrine with what the text actually says.

But that is not to say that works play no part in a Christian's life. There is a difference between saying that works do not save you, and claiming that a Christian doesn't need to follow what Jesus taught. You are conflating the two.

So what's the point of the works in the first place? What's the point of obeying what Jesus taught? Why would Jesus say that if you don't help your impoverished brother that you burn in hell? I think you're putting the cart before the horse. It's the works that determine whether you make it. What you're saying what Jesus says I challenge you to present your case with verses.

Titus 3:5-8 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men."

Titus just so happens to be another one of the books that is nearly universally regarded as a later spurious invention, not by Paul. Notice the pattern? The anti-works books seem to be written by later writers. They don't even match with what Paul says in his "authentic" Epistles.

There's a whole world of debate between what Jesus says and what Paul says and what the Pseudipigraphic "Pauline" (Deutero-Pauline) epistles says. The "multiple viewpoints" can also be regarded as an issue of clashing and contradictory accounts going back to the days of the Nazarenes and Ebionites who rejected Paul.

This article summed up this viewpoint rather thoroughly. I was surprised that the Catholic interpretation so closely aligned with my own, even though I was raised hardcore Protestant

I'll take a look at that article, but I can imagine its based on a mostly Pauline and Deutero-Pauline perspective and not on what Jesus actually said.

 

[Walkntune]

So when Paul says that unrepentant sinners won't inherit the Kingdom, how does that fit with your idea?

I will answer this with soomething I wrote.

What is sin? It is self effort or not in faith with Gods provision. What is grace? It is unmerited favor or favor that is not from self effort. To stay away from sin by your own efforts to be right with God is the most deceptive sin of all and is that of self righteousness and operating in the knowledge of good and evil..We must be solely dependant on Gods grace for justification. Any offering that comes from self effort( like that of Cains representing self effort as we know the curse on the ground was that man would have to work by the sweat of his brow as in self effort and Cains offering was fruit from the ground) is very displeasing to the Lord. Grace is all you have to stand in or else you fall back in self effort.Its not your actions good or bad that justify but its whether you are relying on your self efforts or trusting in God's provisions.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
We just believe on this rock of who Christ is and fountains of living water will flow. There is no need to strike this rock as Moses did with a staff(add self effort)to get the water to flow. This unbelief cost Moses the entering of the promised land.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Only Believe!
The goodness of the Lord leads one to repentance and not repentance that leads one to the goodness of the Lord.The subtle difference is whos effort you operate in.No need to search yourself for sins to repent of in order to recieve from God.
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10 I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Just believe and recieve from God and then he will reveal what is in your heart and renew your mind. Lets give God all of the work so he can have all of the glory!

 

[Shermana]

Well, I don't think that means they will no longer sin. I think it's the effort that is important-- trying to obey the commandments-- since after all, we're all gonna mess up now and then. It's those who aren't trying at all that God gives the stink eye.

But yes, I think the two are pretty inextricably connected.

Now think about just how many churches and modern religious leaders don't believe that obeying the commandments is necessary or important or even something to be encouraged....

(Yes, that would be most all of them)

We can attribute it to their interpretations of Paul I suppose, but one has to wonder at what point we attribute it to their personal convenience.

 

[George-ananda]

For me, this is a rhetorical question, but I am interested in the views of others, including non-Christians and their religious beliefs.

Saved by faith alone, or by faith + deeds (good works)?

(NASB)
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

vs.

Revelation 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

Thus the contradiction and disagreement between Christian denominations.

The term 'Saved' is a bad idea that got into Christianity early. Our spiritual state is not all or nothing. We bring heaven/hell to ourselves by our deeds and thoughts.

 

[Shiranui117]

I guess the whole debate over faith vs works that's been going on, oh, just about forever, could have been put to rest if they had just asked Shermana what the text says.

The point being, of course, that the text supports multiple viewpoints. Some verses support the concept that faith in God is what saves people, and emphatically denies that works has anything to do with it: Eph 2:8 for instance.

Other verses support the concept that works are central.

And others support a synthesis between the two. Notably, James 2:20, and the famous "faith without works is dead."

I think the latter makes the most sense, both internally (from taking together everything in the NT) and externally (aesthetically and logically).


You misunderstand. I am talking about what pays the price of the ticket. That's what I mean when I say that good works do not save you-- you could follow the letter to the law, and it would still "profit you nothing". Jesus is the one who paid the price, full stop. I think it is important-- and something that Jesus emphasized himself-- to understand this: No matter how righteous you are, it's still not good enough. And in fact, if that is what you believe saves you, it is considered harmful (since it can lead to boastfulness, pride, feeling that you earned something from God that was given only because of grace, etc.)

But that is not to say that works play no part in a Christian's life. There is a difference between saying that works do not save you, and claiming that a Christian doesn't need to follow what Jesus taught. You are conflating the two.

I think this verse basically sums up the relationship between salvation through grace and the need for works. It is the way that I viewed it:

Titus 3:5-8 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men."

This article summed up this viewpoint rather thoroughly. I was surprised that the Catholic interpretation so closely aligned with my own, even though I was raised hardcore Protestant.

Actually, the whole idea of "faith vs. works" didn't exist before the 1500's in Western Christianity. In Eastern Christianity (which has a better track record of sticking to its guns and not changing the faith or its perspective thereof), there is no such thing as "faith vs. works." It's either "faith and works," or, more simply/correctly, "living the faith."