"Works Salvation"

[Eternally-Grateful]

I was addressing your religious philosophy. "Paul was fighting this religious attitude of merit based salvation".

As the Scriptures show in my post clearly shows, he wasn't.

Why not just address what the post exposes or discuss with me what you believe is wrong about the post.

He was.

Why do you have to be so dishonest? Was Jesus "Trying to earn Salvation" when HE "humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross".

The fact you seem to think Jesus had to be saved is worrysome and says alot.

Jesus work of going to the cross was payment for my salvation.

Was John promoting a "merit based" Salvation when he said;

1 John 2: 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

No. Because he is talking to those already saved or as he said "WE ARE IN HIM"

Yes, of course you do, what else would anyone say who calls Jesus Lord, Lord?

Well you would not say I must do this that or anything else to stay saved

But I was speaking about the insidious falsehood being promoted by this world's religious businesses and sects, that you are also promoting, that the Pharisees were trying to "earn" salvation by obedience to God's Laws, as they were instructed by God to do.

do what?

I have never made any such proclamation..

The Pharisees thought they were ok. that's why they rejected Jesus.

That is what my post was about.

As far as conditions place on Salvation;

Luke 13: 4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

In your religion, if I chose to become a "Doer" of Christ's instruction here, and repent, am I trying to "Earn Salvation"? Or is this a Work of faith?

John 15: 14 Ye are my friends, "if ye do" whatsoever I command you.

"IF" I submit to these Word's God gave to me through His Son, in your religion, am I trying to "Earn" the Favor of Jesus? Or is my submission to Him a "work" of Faith?

Paul said,

Rom. 6: 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members "as instruments of righteousness" unto God.

Since God's Grace was given to me, while I was yet a sinner, in other words, Jesus, my Passover, was killed while I was yet a sinner, in the exact same way that the Passover Lamb was slain while Israel was Yet in Egypt, then clearly this Grace came to me, "Not by works of righteousness that I had done".

But now what? "shall I continue to transgress God's commandments, because I am not under the law, (Dead in trespasses and Sins), but under grace? ( as those that are alive from the dead) God forbid. That means NO EG!

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, "his servants ye are" to whom ye obey; whether of "sin"(Transgression of God's Law) unto death,(still, even after Christ died for Paul) or of "obedience" unto righteousness?

If I submit to Paul's teaching here, in your religion, am I trying to "Earn Salvation" by "Yielding myself" to God, and my body as instruments of righteousness unto God?

Would you also accuse Eve of "Trying to Earn Salvation" if she had listened to God, instead of the "other voice" in the garden that also "Professed to know God"?

The point is, Paul was not "fighting this religious attitude of merit based salvation".

He was fighting against what Jeremiah prophesied of.

Jer. 23: 16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision "of their own heart", and "not out of the mouth of the LORD". 17 They say still unto them that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one "that walketh after the imagination of his own heart", No evil shall come upon you.

And lastly, the Jesus "of the Bible" said;

Matt. 4: 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

If a man strives to enter this Narrow Path, that Jesus walked in, in your religion, is this man "Trying to Earn Salvation", and therefore condemned like the Pharisees, or does this man simply Love God and His Son with all his heart, and has placed his trust in Them with his very life?

No EG! Paul wasn't "fighting this religious attitude of merit based salvation". He was fighting "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience".

Yep.

Alot of works. Alot of self. Not God.

Paul fought all over the merit based salvation.

You can not see it, because in order for you to see it you would have to repent of your own works based gospel.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

To merit something, you have to provide something of equal worth, not just anything.

Which is why we can not meet salvatyion.

But it does not stop people from trying to do it.

The jews circumcision, and other works of the law. The church baptism and all the sacraments etc etc.

Your right, it will nt merit salvation. But people preach it does

If I bring a bunch of Monopoly money to pay for a diamond ring, that is not meriting it.

If someone offers me a Lamborghini if I clap my hands, that is not meriting it.

Please take the time to actually read this and not skim the title:

Post in thread 'An Article on free will'

Jan 10, 2025

You believe you buy your way into heaven with your free-will

Calvinists and Free Gracers make the same fundamental logical mistake, this is why they both accuse each other of back loading works. They insist that if action X produces result Y that necessarily means it was merited. This is a non sequitur. There is such a thing as a non meritorious work, an action that produces a result without earning it, such as receiving a gift. Now despite arguing this, Free Grace believes in real Free Will and so allows a "one little bitty mini-work" of free will acceptance of the Gospel message...

• Dizerner

• 

I have actually read it before and responded to it.. I do not see how reading it again will help

 

[Dizerner]

I have actually read it before and responded to it.. I do not see how reading it again will help

It completely disproves your faulty logic borrowed from Calvinism.

If your twisted and perverted view of grace were correct, than your free will decision adds your own merit and helps earn your salvation.

You have to eliminate free will altogether under that false understanding of grace.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

It completely disproves your faulty logic borrowed from Calvinism.

Dude, I am not a calvinist.

Your bearing false witness. How can you sit there and tell everyone you are man of God when you continually on on purpose breaks Gods commandments?

If your twisted and perverted view of grace were correct, than your free will decision adds your own merit and helps earn your salvation.

Nope. I can not save myself. I can stop god from saving my by my unbelief, but I can nto save myself.

You have to eliminate free will altogether under that false understanding of grace.

Nope. Completely free will

Jesus died for the world. not the elect.

All sin and blasphemy is forgiven All men,

Your problem is you can not get away from your own pride. You have to save yourself. By some action or keep yourself saved by not doing some action.

He who believes is saved

He who does not believe is condemned ALREADY.

There is no such thing of going to a state of saved or non condemnation back to being condemned,

 

[Dizerner]

Dude, I am not a calvinist.

If I BORROW logic from a system, that already says I do not fully ACCEPT the system.

"Dude."

No one called you a Calvinist; you can use the same logic as Calvinism without being one.

Your bearing false witness. How can you sit there and tell everyone you are man of God when you continually on on purpose breaks Gods commandments?

Your false accusation of being a false witness, is ITSELF false witness.

So should I thereby discount everything you say for your illogical and dishonest tactics?

No, I will still give you a chance to understand the truth.

Nope. Completely free will

The same free will that got you saved, keeps you saved.

At the initial moment of salvation, you "allow" free will.

Thereafter, you take the SAME exact free will and call it "works" and "meriting."

It's internally self-contradictory.

Your problem is you can not get away from your own pride. You have to save yourself. By some action or keep yourself saved by not doing some action.

My "problem" is your understanding of grace that is borrowed from Calvinism is perverted and doesn't match what Jesus taught us.

If you want to call that a problem, lol, I sure don't.

There is no such thing of going to a state of saved or non condemnation back to being condemned,

Twice dead.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I have not said it is "ethical" to do anything.

You said that the Bible is the source of ethics.
So, you seem to consider ethics as something relevant. Call it “good and evil” instead of ethics if you want.

If any person asks us to believe in a given sacred book, and some text of that book presents an immoral god or an immoral notion or ask us to perform an immoral act, then we have two options
Either we believe that such text is inspired but the interpretation is wrong, or
We reject the book as wrong.

Otherwise we get into a circular thinking of absurdity: something is good because the book says it, and the book is good because the book itself says it is good.

 

[Dizerner]

You said that the Bible is the source of ethics.

I would rather say it is a guide.

You can navigate the ocean without a compass, but it sure will help to have one.

 

[Studyman]

You said that the Bible is the source of ethics.
So, you seem to consider ethics as something relevant. Call it “good and evil” instead of ethics if you want.

If any person asks us to believe in a given sacred book, and some text of that book presents an immoral god or an immoral notion or ask us to perform an immoral act, then we have two options
Either we believe that such text is inspired but the interpretation is wrong, or
We reject the book as wrong.

Otherwise we get into a circular thinking of absurdity: something is good because the book says it, and the book is good because the book itself says it is good.

Or their interpretation is wrong. Absolutely my friend.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

My "problem" is your understanding of grace that is borrowed from Calvinism is perverted and doesn't match what Jesus taught us.

If you want to call that a problem, lol, I sure don't.

@Eternally-Grateful thinks you have a problem with pride.
You think I have a problem with pride.
Perhaps we all have a problem with pride, but it has little to do with our theological stance.
I guess It is either the way we talk about it, or way we are perceived by the other person.
In any case, for what is worth, I have never perceived you as a proud person.

 

[Dizerner]

@Eternally-Grateful thinks you have a problem with pride.
You think I have a problem with pride.
Perhaps we all have a problem with pride, but it has little to do with our theological stance.
I guess It is either the way we talk about it, or way we are perceived by the other person.
In any case, for what is worth, I have never perceived you as a proud person.

I still struggle with pride daily, every man does have a measure of pride, and I repent every day.

However, if one flat out rejects God's authority and the need for redemptive grace, that is not a measure of pride—that is pure pride.

 

[Seabass]

yeppers

But then you go an contradict yourself by saying we must do works

Obedience to recieve something is a work of merit


so you lied when you said salvation is a free gift. it can not be earned. And in the rest of the post you gave us the price you think one must pay to save themselves.

Got it

It's an everyday fact that free gifts can and do come with conditions, it's the gift givers perogative to make his gift uncondtional or conditional and God has made reception of His free gift of salvation conditional upon obedience and meeting conditions does not earn the free gift. This is why you and mailmandan cannot find one example in the NT gospel of God UNconditionally saving those who will not CONDITIONALLY obey God's will but continued to live in disobedience and defiance of God's will.

God did not owe Naaman the free gift of healing, it was a matter of God's grace, Since it was a matter of grace then Naaman's obedient work in dipping 7 times could NOT earn that free gift, his obedience was just meeting the conditions God Himself put on His free gift. If you want to argue that his obedience in dipping 7 times was a work of merit, then you are removing God's grace from the Bible.
Likewise God did not owe Noah salvation from the flood, it was also a matter God's grace. But if you want to argue that Noah merited his salvation from the flood by his obedience in building the ark then you have once again removed God's grace from the Bible.....you are essentially removing grace completely from the BIble when you try and make obedience a work of merit.

You need to rethink your false theology for it has got you to the point of having to reject everyday facts and truths.

 

[Doug Brents]

You said that the Bible is the source of ethics.
So, you seem to consider ethics as something relevant. Call it “good and evil” instead of ethics if you want.

If any person asks us to believe in a given sacred book, and some text of that book presents an immoral god or an immoral notion or ask us to perform an immoral act, then we have two options
Either we believe that such text is inspired but the interpretation is wrong, or
We reject the book as wrong.

Otherwise we get into a circular thinking of absurdity: something is good because the book says it, and the book is good because the book itself says it is good.

God is good because God is good. Regardless of what we think, believe, or reason. It is certainly immoral for us as "Christian", or muslim, or buddhist, or whatever, to kill members of other religious groups just because they don't believe as we do. That is murder. However, when it was commanded by God as punishment for the sins committed by those peoples (Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, etc.), it is not immoral, but is the just punishment passed down by the only righteous judge.

It is not immoral for the Creator to do with His creation whatever He chooses to do. It would not be immoral for a programmer to delete, incenerate, destroy, and otherwise shut down a self-aware computer program that he wrote, or a robot (C3-PO) that he had built, any more than it would be immoral for him to shatter a clay pot he had crafted.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

It's an everyday fact that free gifts can and do come with conditions, it's the gift givers perogative to make his gift uncondtional or conditional and God has made reception of His free gift of salvation conditional upon obedience and meeting conditions does not earn the free gift. This is why you and mailmandan cannot find one example in the NT gospel of God UNconditionally saving those who will not CONDITIONALLY obey God's will but continued to live in disobedience and defiance of God's will.

God did not owe Naaman the free gift of healing, it was a matter of God's grace, Since it was a matter of grace then Naaman's obedient work in dipping 7 times could NOT earn that free gift, his obedience was just meeting the conditions God Himself put on His free gift. If you want to argue that his obedience in dipping 7 times was a work of merit, then you are removing God's grace from the Bible.
Likewise God did not owe Noah salvation from the flood, it was also a matter God's grace. But if you want to argue that Noah merited his salvation from the flood by his obedience in building the ark then you have once again removed God's grace from the Bible.....you are essentially removing grace completely from the BIble when you try and make obedience a work of merit.

You need to rethink your false theology for it has got you to the point of having to reject everyday facts and truths.

lol.

If I give you something and make you pay for it. its not a gift.

I feel sorry for your kids. (if you have any) do you make them pay for their Christmas gifts?

 

[Doug Brents]

lol.

If I give you something and make you pay for it. its not a gift.

I feel sorry for your kids. (if you have any) do you make them pay for their Christmas gifts?

Is it "pay[ing] for it" if they have to unwrap it, or (as in the case of a car purchased for an out of town relative) go to the dealership to pick it up? No, not at all.

My children must unwrap all the Christmas and birthday gifts I give them, but the unwrapping of it does not repay me for any of the price I paid for it. Nor do our actions of faith repay God in any shape, form, or fashion for His purchase of salvation for us.

 

[mailmandan]

lol.

If I give you something and make you pay for it. its not a gift.

I feel sorry for your kids. (if you have any) do you make them pay for their Christmas gifts?

As I said before, I often hear works-salvationists try to make a distinction between works that are boastful and works that are not boastful in regard to receiving salvation (saved by "these" works/non-boastful works and just not "those" works/boastful works) but that is a purely human-made imaginary term and a cunning way to get around the truth and boast in their personal definition of non-boastful works. Their sugar coated double talk is just smoke and mirrors.

 

[Doug Brents]

As I said before, I often hear works-salvationists try to make a distinction between works that are boastful and works that are not boastful in regard to receiving salvation (saved by "these" works/non-boastful works and just not "those" works/boastful works) but that is a purely human-made imaginary term and a cunning way to get around the truth and boast in their personal definition of non-boastful works. Their sugar coated double talk is just smoke and mirrors.

So you are saying that if you go into a store and open/unwrap a package and take what is inside, it is not really theft, because in opening the package you "paid" for the contents? That is what you are claiming when you say that unwrapping a gift constitutes payment (even partially) for the gift. No, Dan, there is a difference between an action intended to earn something and an action that is required to take possession of a gift.

 

[mailmandan]

So you are saying that if you go into a store and open/unwrap a package and take what is inside, it is not really theft, because in opening the package you "paid" for the contents? That is what you are claiming when you say that unwrapping a gift constitutes payment (even partially) for the gift. No, Dan, there is a difference between an action intended to earn something and an action that is required to take possession of a gift.

Straw man argument. You either accept a free gift or else you reject it just like you either receive the free gift of eternal through faith (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9) or else you reject it.

 

[Studyman]

This is obviously talking about physical death, not spiritual death.

You are making a distinction that God doesn't make, and that to justify the popular myth that that man's soul is immortal from his birth. Jesus knew better.

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell".

God preserves the soul of man for Judgment, but as Jesus Himself tells you, man's soul is not "immortal", like the angels. And the teaching that God gives it immortality, just to torture it forever, is truly a popular religious marketing strategy designed to get folks to adopt and contribute to this world's various religious businesses and sects, many of which "come in Christ's Name", as Jesus also warns. But it is not what the Scriptures teach, if one considers all that is written.

But if a man's soul can be destroyed, as the Jesus "of the bible" clearly warns, then it is not immortal, by very definition. Meanwhile, Abraham and David are still dead, not knowing, perceiving, thinking, praising, loving, hating, or anything that the soul of man can do. And yet he will be raised from this state and not destroyed, as Jesus warns, but he will be given the gift of immortality both body and soul, that they will never be destroyed. And like Jesus, if God doesn't resurrect Abraham or David, he will be in the heart of the earth forever, in the same state. Just as Jesus would still be in the heart of the earth, knowing nothing, seeing nothing, serving no one, if His Father had not raised Him. Clearly Jesus didn't want to remain dead.

Heb. 5: 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

God heard Him, but HE was still killed, so God didn't "save him from physical death" as you preach. God saved Him from the State HE was in for 3 days and 3 nights, knowing nothing, praising no one, saving no one. And gave both His Body and Soul, immortality. And HE became the First ever mortal Human to receive the gift.

I get that this world's religious system with their death industry and merchants of the earth, depends on these death philosophies for their business to survive. And perhaps the truth about mortal souls doesn't matter.

Nevertheless, it seems important to believe all that is written, over the "Other voice" in the garden who convinces men, "Ye shall surely not die".

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

God is good because God is good. Regardless of what we think, believe, or reason.

I agree, but God does not remain silent in his inaccesible Goodness but reveals Himself to men. God says He is just and ask us to be just as well. He claims to be merciful and asks us to be merciful as well. He claims to be wise and asks us to be wise as well.
Since God is a God who describes himself with certain attributes, and wants us to reflect his attributes, what we understand by "God is good" matters.

SCENARIO TO THINK ABOUT

Imagine a priest of Moloch coming to a naïve person (one without strong bonds to any particular religion) and telling him that he should worship Moloch and offer babies to him in order to gain his favor. If questioned about the goodness of Moloch, such priest could rebuke:

"What are you talking about? You are a mortal, while Moloch is a god, and he does not need your moral approval to ask babies for sacrifice. That's why he is a god! In this papyrus, you can read that Moloch is good. Moloch wrote it Himself for our ancestors the Canaanites". ​

How could the potential convert to the religion of Moloch determine whether Moloch is indeed good or not? What if the sacrifice of babies had a higher purpose that we, poor mortals, cannot fathom?

Even if the potential convert could not access "Moloch's mind" directly (assuming he is a god), he could judge the morality of the worship to Moloch, to specific teachings of Moloch, the moral life of Moloch's priests and the kind of life they require him to live. In other words, how Moloch supposedly reveals to men. On that basis such man could find out whether the religion of Moloch makes sense to him or not. Do you agree?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Is it "pay[ing] for it" if they have to unwrap it, or (as in the case of a car purchased for an out of town relative) go to the dealership to pick it up? No, not at all.

My children must unwrap all the Christmas and birthday gifts I give them, but the unwrapping of it does not repay me for any of the price I paid for it.

Actually when I give them the gift. what they do with it is up to them/. if they want to leave it wrapped up they can

Do you need to unwrap your salvation? Better yet, do you unwrap yourself (You are a gift to the father from the son) Think about what your saying

Nor do our actions of faith repay God in any shape, form, or fashion for His purchase of salvation for us.

If your doing the work of getting baptised in order to be saved. You are in fact meriting salvation.

Its no different than the jew saying they must get cut..

Why are people afraid to look to God to save them. and not look to self?