"Works Salvation"

[Seabass]

Man by nature has a disobedient nature, but he doesnt know it, and he cant change it, listen to Jeremiah, 13:23

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

covered in post 1672

 

[Titus]

did not know that about Slick's daughter, it would make an atheist out of me too.

If I remember correctly, this forum came into existence as a result of Slick banning many people, including me, from CARM.

Very interesting.
I've posted a handful of times on CARM.

I've also posted on the live u-tube comments on Matt Slick's u- tube channel during His Bible study classes.
I did not know this forum had any relation to CARM.
If you ever want to have a live discussion with Mr. Slick you can on his u-tube channel. He's not gracious if you disagree. He is quick to ban non-calvinist's.

 

[brightfame52]

God does not cause people to be sinner's against their will then punish people for the way He made them, that is not righteous or just but evil and sadistic.

Before God changes our nature, this is the condition of our mind Col 1:21

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

Thats why God must give us repentance, which is a change of mind.

 

[brightfame52]

covered in post 1672

By nature we are disobedient, confined to disobedience Eph 2:2

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Rom 11:32

32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

The word for unbelief here is also disobedience, its the greek word apeitheia:

1. obstinacy, obstinate opposition to the divine will

The same word is translated
disobedient (3x). and one of those times is Eph 2:2

By nature we are concluded in disobedience/unbelief

The word concluded means: sygkleiō:

1. to shut up together, enclose
   1. of a shoal of fishes in a net
2. to shut up on all sides, shut up completely

We are imprisoned into disobedience, the only way to freedom is Gods Mercy of Regeneration, a new nature.


Unfortunately you cant freewill yourself out of the prison of unbelief friend

 

[atpollard]

God gave man the way to be saved, that being, the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is up to man to take this gospel God gave and obey it to be saved. Those that choose to obey it will be saved (Rom 6:16-18) and those that do not will be in flaming fire (2 Thess 1:8). Therefore Calvinsim is WRONG falsely claiming salvation is monergistic where God does everything while man has nothing to do at all. Yet the Bible shows there is a synergism where BOTH God and man have a role in man's salvation. In Acts 2 God gave those lost Jews what they needed to be saved (repent & be baptized for remission 0f sins) yet it was up to those Jews to take what God has given and obey it to recieve salvation.

Rom 3 does not reach total depravity, people take verses 10-18 OUT of context and read total depravity into it.

Context Matters:
Paul proves that Gentiles are sinners in Rom 1 and Jews are sinners in Rom 2 and declares all (Gentile & Jew) are under sin. People under sin are in need of justification.

In the context of Rom 3, Paul begins talking about the OT law of Moses that was given to the Jew and how it gave the Jew an advantage over the Gentile. Though the Jew had an advantage of being given their own law, that OT law could not justifiy therefore leaving the Jew unjustified as the Gentile, Rom 3:9. Hence man cannot find justification by the OT law for that law required the Jew to do the work of perfect, flawless law keeping to be justified. Yet the Jew as not able to keep it flawlessly perfect. How do we know the Jew sinned and did not keep that law perfectly sinless? Paul in Rom 3:10-18 Paul goes back to that OT law taking verses out of that law and applying those verse to the Jews to prove they did not keep that OT law sinless perfect. In v19 Paul then tells the Jew:

"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law:"

Paul is essentially telling the Jew here in v19 that your own law given to you says you are sinners. Paul says the law speaks to them them who are under law. The OT law was only given to the Jew and no one else, hence v19 is not applicable to all people of all time but specifically applied to the Jew proving the Jews to be sinners thereby leaving them unjustified by that OT law.

Rom 3:10
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

The term "righteous" is used in different senses in the BIble. When the BIble says God is righteous then righteous means perfectly siness. When the Bible says men are righteous, as Abel in Heb 11:4, it does NOT mean Abel was perfectly sinless but he had an OBEDIENT faith in doing as God instructed. Righteous is also used in the sense in how you deal with your fellow man, do you treat your fellow man in a righteous good way or in an unrighteous bad way.

Since the OT law required the Jew to keep it perfectly flawlessly sinless to be justified by that law then Paul is using the term "righteous" in a perfect sinless sense. Since none of the Jews kept the OT law perfectly sinless then none were righteous in the perfect sense therefore left unjustified by that OT law (Rom 3:9).

Rom 3:11
"There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."
Paul here is NOT speaking about Jew inability to understand or inability to seek God but is speaking to their sinful refusal in understanding and refusal in seeking God.

Isa 55:6
"Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:" They were commanded to seek the Lord...it would be senseless and useless to give them a command they could not possibly follow if they were totally depraved. The fact the command was given therefore logically implies ability. If man is born with the inability to seek God, then he has no responsibility to seek God. Yet the verse does not speak to inability to seek God but to guilt and sin is not using ability to seek God.

Some of the verse Paul quotes in Rom 3:10-18 Camden from David, a man who did seek after the Lord. Psa 34:4; 77:2.

The Jews did not seek God because they did not set their heart to seek God, not because of a innate birth defect that prevented them from seeking God:

1 Chron 22:19
Now set your heart and your soul to seek the LORD your God;

2 Chron 11:16
such as set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel

2 Chron 12:14
he prepared not his heart to seek the LORD.

2 Chron 20:3
Jehoshaphat feared, and set himself to seek the LORD,

Ezra 7:10
Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD,

Paul is attacking the Jews for they were very pious and religious. Though they read, studied the law everyday and memorized and quoted the law they did not understand it for in reality they were more interested in establishing and seeking their OWN righteousness rather than submit to God's righteousness. (Rom 10:3)

Rom 3:12
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Paul does NOT say they were BORN out of the way or BORN unprofitable but Paul speaks to what they became through personal culpability not by a birth defect. "GONE out of the way" implies a time when they were not out of the way yet total inability implies ALWAYS out of the way. "Become unprofitable" implies a time they were profitable yet total inability implies ALWAYS unprofitable.

Rom 3:13ff
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Destruction and misery are in their ways:
And the way of peace have they not known:
There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Paul here is not describing the action of an infant for an infant is incapable of committing such things but Paul refers to people who are culpable for their willful, sinful choices as those Jews.

You are ignoring the fact that Paul and God keep saying “ALL” and “NONE, NO NOT ONE”. That is not “some choose sin”. That is not “most choose sin”. That is ALL CHOOSE SIN. A 100% track record may mean nothing to you, but I find it a very significant statement for God and Paul to make.

All men choose sin, and only God can change that (as Ephesians teaches).

 

[Titus]

You are ignoring the fact that Paul and God keep saying “ALL” and “NONE, NO NOT ONE”. That is not “some choose sin”. That is not “most choose sin”. That is ALL CHOOSE SIN. A 100% track record may mean nothing to you, but I find it a very significant statement for God and Paul to make.

All men choose sin, and only God can change that (as Ephesians teaches).

Chosing to sin and being born in sin do not equate.

Also you are taking the verse out of context.

 

[mailmandan]

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

Twice dead.

A tree being dead to the core as such a tree was utterly incapable of producing good fruit then being uprooted is twice dead. The NASB says "doubly dead." (Jude 1:12) *This is not about going from a saved state back to a condemned state.

Notice in Matthew 15:13 that Jesus said every plant that my Heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted.

Jude further describes these ungodly men who crept in unnoticed that were marked out/designated for condemnation (vs. 4) as ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. (vs. 19)

In contrast with those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ. (vs. 1) Psalm 37:28 - For the Lord loves justice and does not forsake His saints; They are preserved forever, But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off.

 

[atpollard]

Chosing to sin and being born in sin do not equate.

No, they are not equivalent. One must go to other verses to support people being born in sin (or answer the empirical question "When did YOU teach YOUR infant to sin?")

However, the fact that EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION does choose to sin, renders the debate about babies being born sinless or not a moot question ... even a baby born sinless will choose sin over God (just as Adam and Eve did). All sinners stand condemned (God said that) and no sinner will come to the Light [God] (God said that, too), so the sinless baby needs a special drawing by God as much as if he was born in sin (just like Adam did in Genesis 3:8).

Also you are taking the verse out of context.

There is a lot of that going around.
... And even more accusations of it.

How about Ephesians 1:3 through Ephesians 2:10? When I quoted that entire block of scripture as an example of our condition and what God does about it ... was that taken "out of context", too?

 

[Dizerner]

This is not about going from a saved state back to a condemned state.

Twice.

Dead.

 

[mailmandan]

Twice.

Dead.

I already thoroughly explained this in post #1,067. You need to properly read Jude 1:12 in context.

 

[Titus]

No, they are not equivalent. One must go to other verses to support people being born in sin (or answer the empirical question "When did YOU teach YOUR infant to sin?")

You believe babies burn in hell?

One must go to other verses to support people being born in sin (

Being born in sin means all are seperated from God at birth, Isaiah 59:2
If babies die before believing the gospel they must go to hell, John 5:24
For that is the only way to be saved, Romans 1:16; 2Thessalonians 1:8, God makes no exception.
Gods grace is only given to those who believe, Revelation 21:8

Unless sinful babies are saved without the gospel which would make your religion contradict itself, 1Corinthians 14:33

However, the fact that EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION does choose to sin, renders the debate about babies being born sinless or not a moot question ... even a baby born sinless will choose sin over God

Did the angels in heaven choose to rebel against God?
Yes they did. That's called free will.
Did all the angel's in heaven choose to sin against God?
No, because of free will.


Do people choose to sin, Romans 3:23
Yes they do. That's their free moral agency.

Do people also choose to do good and live for God, Deuteronomy 30:15-16
Yes they do because of their free will.

If man did not sin against God they would have to,
1)have full knowledge at birth of what perfect righteousness is, knowing Gods law perfectly.
Some sin is out of ignorance.

2)God would have to eliminate all temptation from their entire life on earth.
Satan cannot tempt the saints who are in hades awaiting judgment like he can all here on earth.

3) Remove satan from tempting man to sin by deceiving him just as the devil did to Eve.

4) Creating a world where the consequences of others sin had no influence at all on every individual.
Crack babies are more likely to use drugs if they survive and are raised by drug addicted parents.

5) Have no free will. Mankind would be robotic or just a computer as God would give the command and man could do nothing other than what God pre-programmed him to do.

even a baby born sinless will choose sin over God (just as Adam and Eve did).

Really?
Babies can choose sin?
How can someone who has no understanding of right nor wrong choose to commit wrong?
Deuteronomy 1:39,
- and as for your little ones who you said would become a prey and your children who today have no knowledge of good or evil

However, the fact that EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION does choose to sin, renders the debate about babies being born sinless or not a moot question .

Does it?

How depraved was John the Baptist?
Did John sin?
Yes,
Did he do more good than evil?
Yes, John worked righteousness but committed little evil.

Look at Elijah,
He did more good than evil.

Look at Moses,

Many Bible characters that did far more good than evil.

Yet you paint this picture that all babies will someday choose to sin against God.

Well, there are examples of men who while not perfect , over the course of their entire lives choose to serve God rather than sin.

Look at young Joseph for example.

Your religion makes all of mankind God haters up until the point when God miraculously regenerates them by giving them a new heart.Babies are totally wicked depraved God hating devils.

This depiction of mans nature is not found in the Bible as proof of many righteous men that from their youth till their death chose righteousness over wickedness.

Only occasionally stumbled but did not dwell in sinful rebellion against God.

I've chosen to sin at weak moments in my life.
Does that make me a God hating evil hearted depraved reprobate by nature?

No it does not.

As bad as the sins of David, Gods word says,
1Samuel 13:1-4,
- but now your king shall not continue the Lord has sought out a man after His own heart and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you

David was just a youth at this time.
Already LOVED God.
Therefore he cannot be non-elect in your religion.
His heart seeks after God.

But later in life he sins greatly against God.
Was David saved until he sinned against God.
He was a righteous man according to Scripture.

Does David's sin make him a God hating totally depraved reprobate?

Conclusion:
Sin at any age does not equate to a innate sinful nature.
Plenty of examples of men who's nature did far more good than evil throughout their entire lives.
God created man upright not depraved,

Ecclesiastes 7:29,
- truly this only have I found, that God created man upright, but they have sought out many schemes

 

[Titus]

How about Ephesians 1:3 through Ephesians 2:10? When I quoted that entire block of scripture as an example of our condition and what God does about it ... was that taken "out of context", too?

Yes

 

[Dizerner]

He was a righteous man according to Scripture.

No one in the Bible is righteous by their own meritorious self-righteousness.

Rather they are accounted righteous through their faith in Christ suffering for their sin.

and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; (Phil. 3:9 NKJ)

Unless sinful babies are saved without the gospel which would make your religion contradict itself, 1Corinthians 14:33

This is a non sequitur, it does not logically follow, they are different category of people, even by your own admission.

The Bible is silent on the matter of infant salvation and so must maintain a reverent mystery and hope for the best.

This does not mean they are saved by their self-righteousness, the Cross may be applied to them in a different way.

 

[mailmandan]

No one in the Bible is righteous by their own meritorious self-righteousness.

Rather they are accounted righteous through their faith in Christ suffering for their sin.

and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; (Phil. 3:9 NKJ)

Amen! Romans 3:20 - Therefore, by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Romans 4:5 - But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

 

[atpollard]

Yes

Ok.

Live long and proper. (I would offer a blessing, but that seems optimistic for someone that rejects all of Ephesians 1 and 2 as TRUTH.)

 

[atpollard]

You believe babies burn in hell?

No, but MY beliefs are irrelevant and God's opinion is the only one that matters.

God said: For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it [does] not [depend] on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. - Romans 9:15-16 [NASB]

Can you provide the definitive verse on babies going to heaven or hell?
I can't, so ... "The secret things belong to the LORD our God ..." - Deuteronomy 29:29

 

[atpollard]

Did the angels in heaven choose to rebel against God?
Yes they did. That's called free will.
Did all the angel's in heaven choose to sin against God?
No, because of free will.


Do people choose to sin, Romans 3:23
Yes they do. That's their free moral agency.

Do people also choose to do good and live for God, Deuteronomy 30:15-16
Yes they do because of their free will.

If man did not sin against God they would have to,
1)have full knowledge at birth of what perfect righteousness is, knowing Gods law perfectly.
Some sin is out of ignorance.

2)God would have to eliminate all temptation from their entire life on earth.
Satan cannot tempt the saints who are in hades awaiting judgment like he can all here on earth.

3) Remove satan from tempting man to sin by deceiving him just as the devil did to Eve.

4) Creating a world where the consequences of others sin had no influence at all on every individual.
Crack babies are more likely to use drugs if they survive and are raised by drug addicted parents.

5) Have no free will. Mankind would be robotic or just a computer as God would give the command and man could do nothing other than what God pre-programmed him to do.

... YOU accuse ME of taking Ephesians 1:3 through 2:10 out of context and then cheery pick single verses to stand in contradiction of one another to prove your myth and disprove the 'strawman' that I never even claimed!

Moral Perfection at birth is not the opposite of Hard Determinism and I never advocated that people have no free will. [I believe that people have no LIBERTINE free will, but the subject has not come up]. I merely pointed out the BIBLICAL FACT that EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION chooses to sin, so even a baby born sinless will eventually choose to sin and need GOD to save him as much as any baby born with a cursed predisposition to sin. The issue of sinless babies is a red herring when everyone falls into the trap of Romans 3:10-12 and Ephesians 2:1-3 and John 3:18-20 [all are unrighteous, all walk in sin, all stand judged for unbelief ... at some point]. Thus all need GOD to intervene if they are to be saved.

Men freely choose sin leading to damnation.
God freely chooses to "HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND ... HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."

 

[Titus]

The Bible is silent on the matter of infant salvation and so must maintain a reverent mystery and hope for the best.

This does not mean they are saved by their self-righteousness, the Cross may be applied to them in a different way

Not so friend, who told you this?

2Samuel 12:23,
- but know that he is dead, why should I fast can I bring him back again I shall go to him but he shall not return to me

2Samuel 12:15-17,
- then on the seventh day it came to pass that the child died and the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, indeed while the child was alive we spoke to him and he would not heed our voice, how can we tell him that the child is dead, he may do some harm

David can go to his dead child in the after-life.
Where is David going when he dies? Heaven or hell?
Where will his child be eternally?

What does the Bible teach about those in torment and those in paradise?
Luke 16:19-31,
- then he cried and said, father Abraham have mercy on me and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame

- but Abraham said, son remember that in your lifetime you received your good things and likewise Lazarus evil things but now he is comforted and you are tormented

- and besides all this between us and you there is a great gulf FIXED so that those who
want to pass from here to you CANNOT, nor can those from here pass to us

The departed cannot be with those who have not gone to their eternal abode.
But David says he can go to his child.
Where is David going? Where then must His child be?

The Bible is silent on the matter of infant salvation

Who told you this?

Matthew 10:13-16,
- and they were bringing children to him that Jesus might touch them and the disciples rebuked them but when Jesus saw it He was indignant and said to them, let the children come to Me, do not hinder them, for such BELONGS THE KINGDOM OF GOD, truly I say to you, whoever does not receive THE KINGDOM OF GOD LIKE A CHILD SHALL NOT ENTER IT, and Jesus took them in His arms and blessed them, laying His hands on them


Matthew 19:14,
- but Jesus said, let the little children come to Me and do not hinder them, for such BELONGS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

Matthew 18:3,
- Except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven

Not once does the Bible condemn babies who are innocent, free of sin, to hell.

No one in the Bible is righteous by their own meritorious self-righteousness

Agreed,
You didn't get that teaching from me friend.

Rather they are accounted righteous through their faith in Christ suffering for their sin.

Those who are seperated from God by their sins.
Babies are without sin. The gospel is for sinners,

Luke 5:32,
- I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance

and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; (Phil. 3:9 NKJ)

This verse has nothing to do with babies.
Babies are without understanding,

Deuteronomy 1:39,
- and as for your little ones who you said would become a prey and your children who today have no knowledge of good or evil

This is a non sequitur, it does not logically follow, they are different category of people, even by your own admission

Agreed, it does not logically follow as calvinism is not a logical theology.

Babies are in no need of salvation for they are innocent therefore in no need of salvation.
Salvation is for those who's sins have seperated them from God, Luke 5:32.

The Bible is silent on the matter of infant salvation and so must maintain a reverent mystery and hope for the best.

It is not.
No need for salvation.
The cross is for salvation of the sinner.
Christ did not shed His blood for children who are already in Gods kingdom.

This does not mean they are saved by their self-righteousness, the Cross may be applied to them in a different way

The Bible is transparent that no self righteous person is saved,
Christ died on the cross for sinners,
Romans 5:8,
- but God shows His love for us in that while we were sinners Christ died for us

God created babies upright in His image.
Sin separates us from God.
There are no babies seperated from God.
They have no need of self-righteousness.

Calvinism causes babies who supposedly are in sin to be lost.
As sin cannot be overlooked by God.

Calvinism then to find a way out of their error, say things like,

The Bible is silent on the matter of infant salvation and so must maintain a reverent mystery and hope for the best.

This is nothing more than a dodge.
One error leads to another.
Eventually man made doctrine contradicts itself and makes illogical arguments that need to be covered up by saying things like it's a mystery.

Babies all go to be with God as Jesus said they are in the kingdom of heaven.
Believe the Bible not doctrines of men.

 

[Titus]

Romans 3:10-12 and Ephesians 2:1-3 and John 3:18-20 [all are unrighteous, all walk in sin, all stand judged for unbelief ... at some point]. Thus all need GOD to intervene if they are to be saved.

None of these verses are including babies.
These are for adults with understanding of right and wrong.

Men freely choose sin leading to damnation.
God freely chooses to "HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND ... HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION

Correct, MEN CHOOSE TO SIN.
Babies have no understanding of sin, therefore cannot choose anything but to be without understanding.

 

[brightfame52]

@Titus

None of these verses are including babies.
These are for adults with understanding of right and wrong.

God sees babies as sinning in their federal head Adam, their representative, he had good understanding of right and wrong. Rom 5:12-14

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.