"Works Salvation"

[Jim]

Respectfully (and I actually mean that), we monergists are responsible to present the Truth to you (we answer for what we do with what we have been given), but only YOU are responsible for what you do with that information. It is no accident that Romans 10:14-15 [NASB] "How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: 'HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!'" is immediately followed by Romans 10:16 [NASB] "However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, 'LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?'".

All that and then you failed to copy and post the highlight and the conclusion of that discussion which is "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"

Moreover, all of that ends with God's plea -" All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" - which is obviously God's plea to the people of Isreal to actively respond to His held out hands. Your soteriology denies that plea saying that God does no such thing.

Red has explained that Jesus saves without needing the "help" of any work (sacrament) of any man. You are free to believe any report you wish (as was man in the Garden and Israel in the promised land) and act on your belief.

None of the conditions of hear, believe, repent, and be baptized constitute help to Jesus in saving. You erroneously call them help, which they definitely are not, and then reject them as needed fulfillment of conditions to be saved, all in defiance of the teaching of scripture.

 

[atpollard]

All that and then you failed to copy and post the highlight and the conclusion of that discussion which is "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"

Moreover, all of that ends with God's plea -" All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" - which is obviously God's plea to the people of Isreal to actively respond to His held out hands. Your soteriology denies that plea saying that God does no such thing.

None of the conditions of hear, believe, repent, and be baptized constitute help to Jesus in saving. You erroneously call them help, which they definitely are not, and then reject them as needed fulfillment of conditions to be saved, all in defiance of the teaching of scripture.

Thank you, but I was not arguing for or against the role of FREE WILL in salvation or where FAITH comes from. I was arguing against the need for SACRAMENTS (physical acts by man) as essential co-requisites to empower salvation.

Arguing God draws vs man responds is a debate that ALWAYS leads nowhere, so I only wade in when specific verses are involved to address very narrow exegetical points. Anything else is a waste of breath.

Discussing whether God can or cannot save without human application of water, or eating a cracker, or any other act by human hands, is a discussion that I find worth having.

I never told you what to believe. I pointed out that Christians have an OBLIGATION to share the Truth as they understand the "good news" (Romans 10:14-15) ... and the HEARER is responsible for what they do with that information (Romans 10:16). That was the point behind the verses that I quoted. "We must TELL what we know." and "You are responsible to believe what is true and reject what is not."

 

[Doug Brents]

Thank you, but I was not arguing for or against the role of FREE WILL in salvation or where FAITH comes from. I was arguing against the need for SACRAMENTS (physical acts by man) as essential co-requisites to empower salvation.

There is no such thing as a "sacrament". A sacrament is something that, in and of itself, conveys grace upon the doer or participant.
Baptism does not do this - If you don't believe in Jesus, being baptized only gets you wet.
Communion does not do this - If you eat in an unworthy manner you eat damnation to yourself.
NOTHING in and of itself can bring God's grace upon anyone or anything.

Discussing whether God can or cannot save without human application of water, or eating a cracker, or any other act by human hands, is a discussion that I find worth having.

And it should be. But you should get on the right side of this discussion. God could save without the application of any action. But He DOESN'T. He has said that He will apply His grace to anyone who exhibits the faith of surrender to Him in repentance (Acts 3:19), confession of Jesus as Lord (Rom 10:9-10), and being baptized (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, John 3:3-5, Gal 3:26-27, Eph 5:26-27, Mark 16:16, Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14). If you do not enter into Christ the way God says we must, then you are not in Christ and He will not claim you before the Father (Matt 10:32).

I never told you what to believe. I pointed out that Christians have an OBLIGATION to share the Truth as they understand the "good news" (Romans 10:14-15) ... and the HEARER is responsible for what they do with that information (Romans 10:16). That was the point behind the verses that I quoted. "We must TELL what we know." and "You are responsible to believe what is true and reject what is not."

I would correct this slightly. We must learn the truth, and then tell the truth. It is not enough just to tell what we know (although we can start telling what we know from day one), but we are also responsible to continue to learn, grow, become deeper in Christ, capable of handling the meat of the Word. If we are teaching falsehoods, then the hearer cannot help but learn falsehoods (which is the problem with the false doctrine of "belief only" being taught in seminaries around the world).

 

[brightfame52]

God's grace to Noah came attached with a condition...

False teaching.

 

[Jim]

Thank you, but I was not arguing for or against the role of FREE WILL in salvation or where FAITH comes from. I was arguing against the need for SACRAMENTS (physical acts by man) as essential co-requisites to empower salvation.

Arguing God draws vs man responds is a debate that ALWAYS leads nowhere, so I only wade in when specific verses are involved to address very narrow exegetical points. Anything else is a waste of breath.

It always leads nowhere for the same reason that discussions of monergism versus synergism always leads to nowhere.

Discussing whether God can or cannot save without human application of water, or eating a cracker, or any other act by human hands, is a discussion that I find worth having.

I almost never argue about whether God can't or can't do anything. I argue sometimes about what God says, when it seems to me a given translation has it wrong, I try mostly to discuss what is meant by some particular passage of scripture.

I never told you what to believe. I pointed out that Christians have an OBLIGATION to share the Truth as they understand the "good news" (Romans 10:14-15) ... and the HEARER is responsible for what they do with that information (Romans 10:16). That was the point behind the verses that I quoted. "We must TELL what we know." and "You are responsible to believe what is true and reject what is not."

Well yes, but in quoting the Romans 10:14-16 leaving out verse 17, you left out what verses 14-16 were in there at all.

And by the way, it is impossible to "share the Truth" and leave out what scripture says is what the hearer should do. What the hearer should do is the vital part of the good news, the gospel. With it the Truth hasn't been shared.

 

[atpollard]

There is no such thing as a "sacrament".

Yes, Brent ... sacraments are a real thing. There is no such thing as a "married bachelor", but a "sacrament" is a real concept [even if those that believe in sacraments - like Catholics and Anglicans and Lutherans are wrong about their power].

But you should get on the right side of this discussion.

Your correction would be more powerful if I wasn't a Particular Baptist (therefore believing in ordinances and rejecting sacraments).

If we are teaching falsehoods, then the hearer cannot help but learn falsehoods (which is the problem with the false doctrine of "belief only" being taught in seminaries around the world).

I will take your word for it. I never attended any seminary. I had a few Religion courses at Community College that did more harm than good and ultimately just learned most of what I know from reading the Bible.

 

[atpollard]

Well yes, but in quoting the Romans 10:14-16 leaving out verse 17, you left out what verses 14-16 were in there at all.

Paul writes in a way that he is NEVER finished ... there is always another verse and another point.

 

[Doug Brents]

Yes, Brent ... sacraments are a real thing. There is no such thing as a "married bachelor", but a "sacrament" is a real concept [even if those that believe in sacraments - like Catholics and Anglicans and Lutherans are wrong about their power].

Sacrament - a religious ceremony or ritual regarded as imparting divine grace
There is NOTHING that can impart divine grace apart from God.

Your correction would be more powerful if I wasn't a Particular Baptist (therefore believing in ordinances and rejecting sacraments).

What is a "Particular baptist"? I've never heard of that.
But you are correct, there are ordinances, but not sacraments.

I will take your word for it. I never attended any seminary. I had a few Religion courses at Community College that did more harm than good and ultimately just learned most of what I know from reading the Bible.

I have never attended seminary either. I attended a university that required each student to take a Bible class each semester, but most of the courses I took were like an overview of the OT, overview of the NT, that kind of thing. Most of my knowledge came from study of the Bible, and studying other people's positions (like the "belief only" crowd's position vs the baptism crowd's position, or the "Jesus isn't God" crowd's position) and then searching Scripture for the Truth of the matter.

 

[Jim]

False teaching.

False reading

 

[Jim]

Paul writes in a way that he is NEVER finished ... there is always another verse and another point.

That all says that reading anything that you post is of little value to anyone.

 

[atpollard]

That all says that reading anything that you post is of little value to anyone.

My, but aren't you friendly.
Typical "Forum Christianity" ... so noted.
Sorry to have bothered you.

 

[Jim]

My, but aren't you friendly.
Typical "Forum Christianity" ... so noted.
Sorry to have bothered you.

No bother. It is always good to find out why someone posts at forums such as this one.