"Works Salvation"
- Thread starter Seabass
- Start date
brightfame52
Active Member
Yes we are impotent, powerless, incapable to do anything that would recommend us to God. Thats why Jesus said no man can come to me in and of himself, cant come, means powerless, without strength, incapable etc. Read the story of the impotent man.
It means:
- Helpless Sinners: It means we were unable to change our sinful condition or reconcile ourselves to God.
- The Context of Salvation: Romans 5:6 states, "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly," emphasizing that salvation is a gift from God, not earned through our own strength.
brightfame52
Active Member
They weren't His real disciples. They followed Him for food or miracles. They were not true believers at all.
Just like these believers were not true believers Jn 2 23-25
23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
brightfame52
Active Member
Doug Brents
Active Member
I'm sorry about that. I thought I was speaking to an adult with a firm enough knowledge of Scripture to find the events I referenced?
Here you go:
That is not what "without strength" is referring to. God would never call us to do something we are completely incapable of doing. We are "without strength" to pay for the car. We are not "without strength" to make it to the dealership.
Naaman was "without strength" to cure leprosy, but he was not "without strength" to dip in Jordan. (2 Kings 5)
The widow was "without strength" to provide food through the famine, but she was not "without strength" to give her last bite to the prophet. (1 Kings 17:7-16)
The widow was "without strength" to pay her late husband's debts and save her son, but she was not "without strength" to borrow jars and pour oil into them. (2 Kings 4:1-7)
Israel was "without strength" to tear down the walls of Jericho, but they were not "without strength" to march around the city. (Joshua 6:1-21)
We are "without strength" to rid ourselves of the stain of sin, but we are not "without strength" to turn to God (repent)(Acts 3:19), verbally and publicly confess our belief that Jesus is Lord (Rom 10:9-10), and to surrender to God in baptism so that He will cleanse our sins, and claim us as His own (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, Mark 16:16, Eph 5:26-27, Gal 3:26-27, John 3:3-5).
Doug Brents
Active Member
We are powerless unless Jesus draws us to Himself. And when Jesus was lifted up (crucified), He drew ALL MEN to Himself. This means that He made it so that anyone who chooses to trust in Him can receive His forgiveness.
Doug Brents
Active Member
That doesn't matter. It does not matter at all that they were not "true believers". What matters is that Scripture says they were disciples, learners, followers. For the time that they followed Him, they were His followers. The fact that they turned back is beside the point.
brightfame52
Active Member
Thats the New Birth, the commencement of a new life
brightfame52
Active Member
It matters a lot
Let me rephrase that to be honest and truthful about what we have. We have some very good copies of the original texts of which most are very old and very close timewise to the originals. There are two major sources being used to translate from the Greek texts into the English. I won't bother to go into those as such, only to note that one, called the Textus Receptus which is a series of Greek New Testament texts that served as the foundational text for many Reformation-era Bible translations, including the King James Version.
Which the Greek texts or the translation of those texts are most likely, if at all, preserved by God. If you believe that God has preserved something, do you think He preserved an English translation but not the Greek text from which it was translated? If so, with all due respect to you and your love of God, that is some really weird thinking. We have very good confirmation that the original texts were by the hand of apostles and prophets the word received by divine revelation through the Holy Spirit. We have no such confirmation that any of the copies or any of the translations have been produced at the divine direction of the Holy Spirit. I have some thoughts of my own in that regard, but I will just leave it there for now.
I will come back and reply to the rest of your post later -- perhaps tomorrow.
Only to one holding to the TULIP manifesto.
@Doug Brents
Enough for now.
That was a worldly low blow, but, what should I expect from men who seek to share glory with God, as though they are not what the scriptures said that they are~wicked and full of pride from our mother's womb~at enmity against God at every step of our walk.
In each and every case you are presenting ~ these folks are showing "the fruits of " regeneration, not the means thereof! Naaman, the widow, and Israel of old.
Concerning Acts 2:38, we explained this above already:
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
The like figure.
There are two figures or pictures here – the ark in the previous verse, baptism in this verse. A figure is a symbolic picture representing something in reality (Romans 5:14; Heb 9:9). The adjective like indicates the figure of baptism is similar to another figure in context. The adverb also in this first clause further confirms at least two things being considered. Noah’s ark and water baptism are two figures: both are a picture of salvation in Christ. This verse about baptism is the most definitive verse in the entire Bible about this ordinance.Whereunto even baptism.
Having introduced Noah and the ark for several reasons, Peter applied its figure to baptism. To this point in I Peter 3:18-22, no reader could know where he was going until these words.Doth also now save us.
The adverb also in this first clause further confirms at least two figures are being considered. The ark literally saved from water; Jesus literally saved His elect from the second death. The ark figuratively saved by figuring Jesus; baptism figuratively saves by figuring Jesus. How does baptism save? It saves figuratively, because baptism has been defined as a figure. There is real salvation in Jesus Christ’s resurrection mentioned in this verse (Rom 4:25). Baptism pictures that resurrection in a figure by its burial and rising again from water. There is no real saving efficacy, power, value in baptism, for the next clause confirms it. When the Bible says baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16), it only does so figuratively. A good conscience answering God in baptism is evidence of eternal life (Mark 16:16). The will and works of man are entirely rejected as having any role in eternal life whatsoever.Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.
A very damning and destructive heresy in church history is the premise that baptism saves. Once you accept this premise for your reasoning, then you will corrupt much more truth. Since water may not be available for an immersion, you will invent sprinkling or pouring. Since many died in infancy, heretics comforted mothers by baptizing their babies, and the consistent Presbyterians doing this will also stuff the Lord’s Supper in their little mouths. Since infants miscarry, and they hold to original sin, they also use intrauterine baptism. Since Campbellites baptize believers, they deny original sin for the age of accountability. Since Mormons require a Mormon baptism, they invented baptism for dead relatives. Baptismal regeneration or salvation is a terrible lie that has corrupted “Christianity.” Modern translations and commentators show a profane perversity by corrupting this point. They must at all costs maintain the RCC heresy and premise that baptism saves the soul. Therefore, when they find God denying their profanity, they alter His words like in Eden. They change the words filth of the flesh … to … dirt of the body in words or meaning. The terms here define, demand, and prove design of water baptism – no means of salvation. Water baptism does not remove or take away sins or sin nature in any literal or real way. This jewel of a text should be memorized by every Baptist child to protect against heresy. Baptism does not put away sin, sins, or sin nature, and any thought to the contrary is heresy. Baptism only saves figuratively, which is the premise on which this entire verse is built. Baptism is by those with good consciences, which can only come after regeneration! Putting away sins was by the finished work of Christ (John 19:30; Heb 1:3; 10:10-14). Man’s will or works, even righteous works, are rejected (Tit 3:5; Jn 1:13; Rom 9:15-16).But the answer of a good conscience toward God.
The terms here define, demand, and prove the subject of baptism – a regenerated believer. The issue at stake in salvation is a conscience understanding guilt and forgiveness of sin. Water baptism is the answer of that good conscience to God for sending Jesus Christ for it. Baptism is not a bad conscience asking for God to save it by water for it to become good. Baptism is the individual ordinance of a person thanking God for saving by Jesus’ death.By the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Proper baptism, burial and resurrection in water, is a figurative picture of Jesus’ resurrection. The connection here defines, demands, and proves the mode of water baptism – immersion. Only baptism by immersion has a figure or picture of any kind at all of body resurrection. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is what saves us legally before God.Enough for now.
brightfame52
Active Member
Red, there is not a credible person of scriptural knowledge that agrees with you on the interpretation of that verse.
Every time that you give your explanation of Acts 2:38 you show that you really do not care what Peter by the power of the Holy Spirit actually says and means, since doing so would destroy your entire version of soteriology.
atpollard
Active Member
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?'".
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.
Doug Brents
Active Member
Oh, so you believe that Naaman was already healed of leprosy, even before he entered Jordan? But Scripture says that he was not healed until he had dipped the seventh time. So if he had stopped at six dips, he would have gone home still a leper. Something is wrong with your "fruits of regeneration" concept.
Again, you believe that the widow's flour and oil would have lasted through the famine if she hadn't given her last piece to the prophet? That is not the promise God gave her through the prophet.
And you believe that the widow would have naturally poured oil from a small jar and filled many larger jars on her own?
No, my friend, these are not "fruits of regeneration", they are the conditions upon which the blessing of God was based.
No, Red, there is NOWHERE in all of Scripture where being pricked in the heart is said to result in receiving salvation. The fact that they were pricked in the heart indicates that they believed (intellectual assent) Peter's message. If that were all that was necessary, then Peter would have told them there was nothing more they needed to do (like the old baptist minister). But he did tell them there was more for them to do. Then still required repentance (meaning that being "pricked in their heart" did not amount to repentance), and they still required baptism in order for them to receive forgiveness of their sins.
Both of them were still in sin. Read Acts 3:19. Repentance must be done IN ORDER TO RECEIVE forgiveness of sins. These men in Acts 2:37-38 still needed to repent, so they had not been forgiven yet.
The writer of this excerpt is indeed correct that there is no power, efficacy, or value in the water of baptism itself. And that is what Peter is telling us in the parenthetical phrase that follows "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh...)". But there is still a requirement of passing through the water, because that is where God says that we connect with the blood of Jesus "(... but the answer of (or the request for) a good (clear) conscience.)"
Yes, baptism is a symbol of being connected with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. And as Rom 6:1-7 portrays, it is "IN BAPTISM" that we die with Christ, and the Holy Spirit (not the water) removes our sins, and unites us with Jesus' resurrection. If you have not yet died with Christ figuratively in baptism, then you have not been resurrected with Christ actually.
Your understanding flows perfectly with all your [false] interpretation of scriptures. To arrive at your interpretation, you have to ignore what the Holy Spirit actually said through the apostles and prophets of God.
For example you ignore the obvious meaning of He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. That is a clear statement that believing and being baptized is to occur in order to be saved. There is no rational scriptural interpretation that salvation occurs before believing and being baptized.
Seabass
Active Member
Noah's obedience in building the ark was a work, but earned him nothing. Was he stealing glory from God by building the ark? No. God commanded him to build the ark, building the ark was not Noah's idea in how to save himself.
God's grace to Noah came attached with a condition...build an ark. Noah therefore built the ark to RECEIVE God's grace. Not building the ark would have been rejecting God's grace.
Nineveh's repentance was a work (Jonah 3:10).
Contextually in Eph 2, it is salvation that is the gift of God and that gift of salvation is by grace through faith.
AI: Salvation is the Gift: The grammatical structure indicates that the "gift" (a neuter noun) refers back to the entire act of being saved by grace, rather than specifically to the feminine noun "faith".
For centuries, Bible commentators have differed on the precise reference of the pronoun “this” (“that” in KJV, ASV) in Ephesians 2:8. Does “this” (touto) refer to faith, as many have stated (e.g., Augustine, Chrysostom, Westcott, Lenski, etc.), or, does “this” refer to salvation from sin? Is faith “the gift of God,” or is this gift salvation by grace through faith?
Admittedly, from a cursory reading of Ephesians 2:8, it may appear that the demonstrative pronoun this has faith as its grammatical antecedent. Those who believe that faith is a gift (i.e., miraculous imposition) from God, often point out that in this verse “faith” is the nearest antecedent of “this” (“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God”). However, when one examines Ephesians 2:8 in the language in which it was written originally (Greek), he finds that the pronoun this (touto) is neuter in gender, while the word faith (pistis) is feminine. Since the general rule in Greek grammar is for the gender and number of a pronoun to be the same as its antecedent (Mounce, 1993, p. 102,109,), then some extenuating linguistic circumstance, special idiomatic use, or other mitigating factor would need to be demonstrated to justify linking “this” to “faith.” If such reasonable justification cannot be made, then one is compelled to continue studying the passage in order to know assuredly what “this” gift of God is.
When no clear antecedent is found within a text, Greek scholar William Mounce wisely recommends that the Bible student study the context of the passage in question in order to help determine what a pronoun is referring to (1993, p. 111). The overall context of the first three chapters of Ephesians is man’s salvation found in Christ.
- “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (1:7).
- The heavenly “inheritance” is found in Christ (1:11).
- After believing in the good news of salvation through Christ, the Ephesians were “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise” (1:13).
- Sinners are made “alive with Christ” and saved “by grace” (2:5).
- Sinners are brought near to God “by the blood of Christ” (2:13).
- Paul became a servant of Christ “according to the gift of the grace of God…by the effective working of His power” (3:7).
- Salvation is by grace.
- Salvation is through faith.
- Salvation is not of yourselves.
- Salvation is the gift of God.
- Salvation is not of works.
Faith is not a direct gift from God given to some but not others. Rather, as Paul wrote to the church at Rome, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Faith in Christ as the Son of God is only found in those who have first heard the Word of God, and then believed (cf. John 20:31).
REFERENCES
Mounce, William D. (1993), Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).Is Faith a Gift from God? - Apologetics Press
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9, ESV). For centuries, Bible commentators have differed on the precise reference of the pronoun “this” (“that” in KJV, ASV) in...
apologeticspress.org
(my emp)
The context in Eph 2 is about salvation, Paul is not giving a commentary of faith.
I accept water in Jn 3 as being literal water because NOTHING in the context remotely suggests otherwise. You cannot accept this, not because of context, but because of theological bias. You are importing into the text that water refers to the physical birth though that idea is not even there.
Similar threads
- Sticky
